MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005489436 · doi:10.1021/jf035218u

The Composition of Grain and Forage from Glyphosate Tolerant Wheat MON 71800 Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum L.</i>)

2004· article· en· W2005489436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet C. Obert, William P. Ridley, Ronald W. Schneider, Susan G. Riordan, Margaret A. Nemeth, William A. Trujillo, Matthew L. Breeze, Roy Sorbet, James D. Astwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateForageBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glyphosate tolerant wheat MON 71800, simply referred to as MON 71800, contains a 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS) that has a reduced affinity for glyphosate as compared to the endogenous plant EPSPS enzyme. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the compositional equivalence of MON 71800 to its nontransgenic parent as well as to conventional wheat varieties. The compositional assessment evaluated the levels of proximates, amino acids, fatty acids, minerals, vitamins, secondary metabolites, and antinutrients in wheat forage and grain grown during two field seasons across a total of eight sites in the United States and Canada. These data demonstrated that with respect to these important nutritional components, the forage and grain from MON 71800 were equivalent to those of its nontransgenic parent and commercial wheat varieties. These data, together with the previously established safety of the CP4 EPSPS protein, support the conclusion that glyphosate tolerant wheat MON 71800 is as safe and nutritious as commercial wheat varieties.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations73
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207