Short Communication: Etiolated growth of hybrid bromegrass (<i>Bromus inermis</i>×<i>B. riparius</i>) compared with smooth bromegrass, meadow bromegrass, crested wheatgrass and tall fescue under grazed or nongrazed conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ward, C. I., Lardner, H. A. and Jefferson, P. G. 2012. Short Communication: Etiolated growth of hybrid bromegrass ( Bromus inermis × B. riparius ) compared with smooth bromegrass, meadow bromegrass, crested wheatgrass and tall fescue under grazed or nongrazed conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 441–445. Etiolated spring regrowth of hybrid bromegrass was compared with smooth bromegrass, meadow bromegrass, crested wheatgrass and tall fescue under beef steer (Bos taurus) grazed or nongrazed conditions in the previous season over 2 yr in 2006 and 2007. Hybrid bromegrass seeded in 2003 had greater energy reserves than old crested wheatgrass (control) and similar reserves to tall fescue and crested wheatgrass. Hybrid bromegrass can be grazed in similar systems as meadow bromegrass and be expected to maintain sufficient energy reserves for spring growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".