MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1949127448 · doi:10.4141/cjps-2014-332

AAC Mountainview sainfoin (<i>Onobrychis viciifoila</i> subsp. <i>Viciifolia</i>)

2015· article· en· W1949127448 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
S. N. Acharya

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarForageHayAgronomyBiologyPasture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acharya, S. N. 2015. AAC Mountainview sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifoila subsp. Viciifolia). Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 603–607. AAC Mountainview sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifoila subsp. viciifolia) was developed by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta. This cultivar, tested as LRC 3902 in Western Forage Trials and in other trials, was derived from parental clones selected for improved persistence in mixed stands with alfalfa and regrowth after cutting. When grown under irrigated and rain-fed conditions of western Canada LRC 3902 out yielded Nova (check) by 22 to 42% in pure stands and 30 to 39% in mixed stands with alfalfa in some locations. This cultivar matures 7–10 d earlier than Nova and has slightly larger seed than Nova (20–24 g 1000 seeds−1 vs. 18–22 g). Although it can be grown for hay and pasture by itself, AAC Mountainview is well suited for preventing pasture bloat in mixed alfalfa stands without loss in animal productivity. Breeder seed for the cultivar will be produced by AAFC, and the multiplication and distribution rights were awarded to NorthStar Seeds through a competitive process.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.009

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207