MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973268078 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.4141348x

Isolation distances for minimizing out‐crossing in spring wheat

2001· article· en· W1973268078 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pierre Hucl, M. A. Matus‐Cádiz

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Seed Growers' Association
KeywordsCultivarBiologyAgronomyPollenSpring (device)HorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently recommended isolation distances of 3 or 10 m for pedigreed seed production of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) may not be sufficient for cultivars with high out‐crossing (OC) rates. The detection of higher than expected OC rates in wheat has directed this research to reassess currently recommended minimum isolation distances. The objective of this study was to determine if increased isolation distances are needed for cultivars that exhibit higher than normal levels of out‐crossing. In each of 2 yr, OC rates were determined for four Canadian spring wheat cultivars at each of 15 distances (0–33 m) from a blue aleurone pollen source. Cultivars were grown in rows perpendicular to the pollinator block to the north, south, west, and east. Target rows were replicated four times within each direction. Out‐crossing in ‘Katepwa’ and ‘Biggar’ was not detected beyond 3 m. Cultivars ‘Roblin’ and ‘Oslo’ exhibited higher than normal OC at distances of up to 27 m. For Roblin and Oslo, an isolation distance of 30 m is recommended to mitigate OC‐derived off‐types in the subsequent generation of pedigreed seed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207