QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF CANADIAN HARD WHITE SPRING WHEAT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Quality characteristics of five pilot‐scale milled Canadian hard white spring wheats were compared to a No.1 grade commercial composite Canada Western Red Spring (1CWRS) wheat. One metric ton of samples was milled on the Canadian International Grains Institute pilot Buhler mill (Buhler AG, Uzwil, Switzerland) into straight‐grade (SG), 85% and whole wheat flours. At the SG extraction level, the white wheats with their lighter colored seed coats had improved milling yields (up to 2.6%) and lower ash (0.01–0.09%) than the 1CWRS control wheat. Majority of white wheat flours had higher protein contents than the 1CWRS control flours for all flour extractions. Based on dough rheological properties of the flours, three of the white wheats (Kanata, Snowbird and BW 275 ) were equal to or better than the red 1CWRS control for nearly all farinograph and mixograph parameters at all flour extractions other than farinograph absorption. Two of the white wheat lines (RL 4863 and RL 4858 ) had excessively weak and overly strong dough properties, respectively. Evaluation of pan bread, bagels and tortillas showed that white wheats generally produced end‐products that were comparable or superior to 1CWRS and that their most significantly positive quality compared to 1CWRS was their substantially lighter colored end‐products.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it