Covered Grains in Naked Oat: Environment and Herbicide Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Naked oat (Avena sativa L.) grown in Québec, Canada, produces an average of 10% covered grains. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of environment, herbicide, and genotype on the proportion of covered grains, to study the relation between the presence of awns and the proportion of covered grains, and to determine the location of covered grains on the plant (tiller) and on the panicle. Eight oat lines were evaluated over 2 yr at four experimental sites. Each line was treated with bromoxynil/MCPA, dicamba/MCPA, or thifensulfuron methyl/tribenuron methyl applied at Zadoks 12–13 and compared to a hand‐weeded check. The highest percentages of covered grains, 5.5 and 6.9%, were found at different sites in 2006 and 2007. The application of dicamba/MCPA increased the percentage of covered grains in the lines normally producing a higher proportion of covered grains, but low producing lines were less affected. Minor differences were found among the other weed control treatments. No relation was found between the presence of awns and the proportion of naked grains. Covered grains were mostly produced on the main stem and their position on the panicle depended on genotype and weed control treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".