MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1919179923 · doi:10.4141/cjps-2014-048

AAC Raymore durum wheat

2014· article· en· W1919179923 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Asheesh K. Singh, J. M. Clarke, R. E. Knox, R. M. DePauw, T. N. McCaig, Richard D. Cuthbert, F. R. Clarke, M. R. Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem rustBiologyCultivarRust (programming language)AgronomyTriticaleGrain yieldStrawTriticum turgidumSmutHorticultureGrain qualityTest weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Singh, A. K., Clarke, J. M., Knox, R. E., DePauw, R. M., McCaig, T. N., Cuthbert, R. D., Clarke, F. R. and Fernandez, M. R. 2014. AAC Raymore durum wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1289–1296. AAC Raymore durum wheat [Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn.] is adapted to the durum production area of the Canadian prairies. AAC Raymore is the first solid stem durum genotype registered for production in Canada for protection against wheat stem sawfly, and combines high grain yield, grain protein concentration, test weight, and low grain cadmium concentration. AAC Raymore has similar straw strength, plant height, and days to maturity as Strongfield. AAC Raymore is resistant to leaf rust, stem rust, stripe rust, common bunt, is moderately susceptible to loose smut, and has improved resistance to common root rot compared with the check cultivars. AAC Raymore has end use quality suitable for the Canada Western Amber Durum class.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1410.074

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207