MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001616088 · doi:10.4141/p04-144

Relationships among growing degree-days, tenderness, other harvest attributes and market value of processing pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i> L.) cultivars grown in Quebec

2006· article· en· W2001616088 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Nicolas Tremblay Edith Fallon, Yves Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsSativumCultivarYield (engineering)Growing degree-dayPisumCropBiologyHarvest timeGrowing seasonAgronomyWater contentHorticultureMathematicsPhenology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Quebec, grower income from processing peas is a function of yield and tenderometer reading. If peas are harvested early, the yield is poor, but the overall quality is superior, as indicated by lower tenderometer readings. Later harvests result in g reater yields but reduced quality (higher tenderometer readings). A better understanding of the relationship between harvest time, yield and quality is needed. In this study, the relationships between yield, tenderometer readings, size distribution and grain moisture content were examined as a function of growing degree-days (GDD) and production year for pea cultivars of different seed size categories. Yield and harvest attributes (tenderometer readings, seed size distribution and moisture content) were highly season dependent and their rates of change over the course of the harvest period also varied with the cultivar and year. Quality declined rapidly once the crop reached optimal maturity, while yield increased in a less predictable manner. Consequently, it was difficult to identify a harvest time that would consistently maximize grower returns. The highest income was generally not obtained at the optimal tenderometer readings presently used by the industry. Key words: Maturity, harvest date, climate, fresh matter yield, tenderometer, pea size

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207