MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006580285 · doi:10.1021/jf010027h

Screening Spring Wheat for Midge Resistance in Relation to Ferulic Acid Content

2001· article· en· W2006580285 on OpenAlexaff
E.-S. M. Abdel-Aal, Pierre Hucl, F. W. Sosulski, R. J. Graf, Cedric Gillott, L. N. Pietrzak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMidgeFerulic acidCultivarBranBiologyAgronomyInfestationPoaceaeHorticultureChemistryFood scienceBotanyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concentration of ferulic acid (FA), the major phenolic acid in the wheat kernel, was found to differ significantly in the mature grain of six wheat cultivars known to have a range of tolerance to the orange wheat blossom midge (Sitodiplosis mosellana). Differences in FA content were correlated with floret infestation level of the cultivars. The wheat cultivars ranked similarly in FA content at the four locations where they were tested, despite a significant effect of environment. Ferulic acid was synthesized mainly during the early stages of grain filling but at different rates among cultivars. Ferulic acid was concentrated primarily in the shorts and bran fractions in an insoluble-bound form. A high correlation was obtained between FA contents as determined by GLC, fluorometry, UV, and colorimetry. The colorimetric procedure was modified as a qualitative, simple, and rapid test for identifying midge-resistant wheat and evaluated in several field trials. The method should provide a rapid tool in the preliminary screening of experimental lines in the development of midge-resistant wheat cultivars.

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)0.000
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations124
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207