Quality of genetically modified (GM) and conventional varieties of canola (spring oilseed rape) grown in western Canada, 1996–2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of GM herbicide tolerant canola is demonstrated by its acceptance by the farm community in Canada. There have been continuing comments, however, including some from major customers, suggesting that GM canola has lower quality than conventional canola. Data drawn from both the Western Canada Canola/Rapeseed Co-operative Test data from 1998–2001 and from the Canadian Grain Commission's harvest surveys of canola from 1996–2001 were used to compare the quality of GM and conventional canola registered and grown. Weed seed contamination of harvest survey samples decreased significantly as the herbicide tolerant lines increased in production. While variety registration data suggested GM and conventional lines had no differences in oil content, data from harvest surveys suggested that GM lines tended to have slightly higher oil contents. Protein and oil contents remain inversely related with no differences in the inverse relationship due to GM. While registration requires that all lines have less than 12 micromoles per gram of glucosinolates, data from harvest surveys show GM lines to have significantly less glucosinolates than conventional lines, possibly due to decreased contamination with cruciferous weeds. A comparison of glucosinolate contents between non-GM herbicide tolerant canola and conventional non-herbicide tolerant canola showed similar differences. There were no significant differences in chlorophyll content, erucic acid levels or saturated fatty acids but harvest survey data showed GM lines were slightly more unsaturated than conventional lines. It would seem safe to conclude that differences in quality between GM and conventional canola are due to the functioning of the GM trait – herbicide tolerance – that allows the GM canola to perform to its potential in the field.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".