MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981811331 · doi:10.4141/cjps08007

The relationship of LT<sub>50</sub> to prolonged freezing survival in winter wheat

2008· article· en· W1981811331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Z. Skinner, Kim Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCultivarWinter wheatBiologyFreezing toleranceCryopreservationAnimal scienceHorticultureBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-six wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) lines were tested for their ability to withstand remaining frozen for extended periods of time. Survival of acclimated seedlings was evaluated after remaining frozen at -5°C for 15 or 20 wk. Survival after 15 wk ranged from 0 to 100% and after 20 wk ranged from 0 to 33%. The relationship of survival and LT50 scores, the temperatures at which 50% of the plants were predicted to die, was examined with linear regression analysis. The linear relationship was highly statistically significant after 15 wk and after 20 wk. The cultivars Norstar and Froid survived being frozen for 20 wk nearly twice as well as the other cultivars; about 33% vs. 17% for the next best cultivar. These results indicated that the LT50 score, which can be estimated in about 8 wk, reliably predicts the ability to survive in the frozen state for as long as 20 wk, and that Norstar and Froid possess a long-term freezing tolerance mechanism that is far superior to the other cultivars tested. Key words: Winter wheat, freezing tolerance, freezing injury

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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