MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024594168 · doi:10.4141/cjps08222

Waskada hard red spring wheat

2009· article· en· W2024594168 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
S. L. Fox, J. B. Thomas, I.L. Wise, M.A.H. Smith, D. G. Humphreys, P. D. Brown, T. F. Townley‐Smith, Brent McCallum, T. G. Fetch, J. G. Menzies, J. Gilbert, M. R. Fernandez, T. Despins, D. Niziol

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest weightPreharvestHorticultureCultivarBiologyStem rustHigh resistanceAgronomyPostharvest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waskada is a hard red spring wheat that meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Red Spring wheat class. Waskada was found to be adapted to the wheat growing regions of the Canadian prairies based on data from the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative Registration Test in 2004, 2005 and 2006. In comparison with the check cultivars (Katepwa, McKenzie, CDC Teal, AC Barrie, and Superb), the grain yield of Waskada was similar to that of the best check in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan. Waskada matures 1 d later than AC Barrie and 1 d earlier than Superb. Waskada had similar height and lodging characteristics as Katepwa and McKenzie. The test weight of Waskada was 1.3 kg hL-1 higher than McKenzie, the best check. Waskada demonstrated moderate resistance to leaf rust but very good resistance to stem rust. Resistance to common bunt and loose smut was good, being similar to the more resistant checks Superb and Katepwa, respectively. Resistance to Fusarium head blight was better than the best check in four determinations made over the 3 yr of registration testing. Waskada appears to deter egg laying by the orange blossom wheat midge. Waskada has good preharvest sprouting resistance with similar or lower sprouting scores than the best check in 4 yr of testing, and it also maintained its falling numbers after natural or artificial weathering of spikes. End-use quality tests identified that Waskada had significantly higher amylograph viscosity than all checks except Superb. Waskada had a significantly lower loaf volume than CDC Teal and AC Barrie and was within the range of the checks for other quality traits. Key words: Triticum aestivum L., cultivar description, red spring wheat, test weight, preharvest sprouting, Fusarium head blight, wheat midge oviposition deterrence

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207