Does growing Canadian Western Hard Red Spring wheat under organic management alter its breadmaking quality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canadian Western Hard Red Spring (CWRS) wheat is recognized as premium quality wheat, ideal for breadmaking due to its superior milling qualities, baking characteristics and protein content. Organic wheat production is becoming more prevalent in Canada, due to increasing consumer demand for organic wheat products. Differences may exist in the baking and milling quality of wheat grown under conventional and organic management, a result of the dissimilarity between organic and conventional soil and crop management practices. Five CWRS cultivars released from 1885 to 1997 were grown under conventional and organic management and were assessed for their breadmaking potential. Several traits were investigated, including test weight, protein content, flour yield, kernel hardness and several mixograph parameters. Test weight was higher under conventional management, while no differences in protein content were observed between organic and conventionally grown wheat. Higher sodium dodecyl sulfate sedimentation (SDSS) volume, a reflection of gluten strength, was observed under conventional management, while there was a trend towards higher dough strength under organic management. Cultivars differed in grain protein, flour yield, kernel hardness and mixograph parameters, with Park and McKenzie superior to the others, particularly Red Fife, a much older cultivar. Management×cultivar interaction effects suggest that cultivars exhibit somewhat different baking characteristics when grown in the two management systems. There was no evidence that older cultivars (developed prior to the widespread use of pesticides and fertilizers) are better suited, in terms of breadmaking quality, for organic production.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".