MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2019502428 · doi:10.4141/cjps06002

Helios hard red spring wheat

2007· article· en· W2019502428 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
R. M. DePauw, R. E. Knox, F. R. Clarke, J. M. Clarke, M. R. Fernandez, T. N. McCaig

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection AgencyScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsCultivarStem rustRust (programming language)BiologyAgronomySproutingFalling NumberFusariumHorticulturePlant disease resistanceSpring (device)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Helios hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) has expressed high grain yield and medium time to maturity. The straw length and strength, volume weight, and seed size were intermediate to the check cultivars. It expressed resistance to prevalent races of stem rust and loose smut, intermediate resistance to common bunt and Fusarium head blight, and moderate susceptibility to leaf rust and leaf spots. It expressed resistance to pre-harvest sprouting and high Hagberg falling number. The end-use suitability of Helios was similar to that of the controls and, therefore, it is eligible for all grades of the Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat class. Key words: Triticum aestivum L., cultivar description, grain yield, disease resistance, Hagberg falling number

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 score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→