MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2029761170 · doi:10.4141/cjps06053

Black medic (<i>Medicago lupulina</i>) germplasm screening for use as a self-regenerating cover crop on the Canadian Prairies

2007· article· en· W2029761170 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Martin H. Entz, Joanne R. Thiessen Martens, William E. May, G. P. Lafond

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsCover cropGermplasmBiologyAgronomyCropMedicagoPhenologyLegumeGrowing seasonCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-regenerating legumes such as black medic (Medicago lupulina L.) can play an important role as a low-maintenance cover crop in annual cropping systems, provided they produce a large quantity of seed, regenerate successfully from the seedbank, and produce a significant amount of biomass. Twenty-seven accessions of black medic, including the cultivar George, were grown at two locations and assessed for their potential as self-regenerating cover crops in prairie conditions, based on phenological and morphological characteristics. Five accessions with adequate seed production, survival and growth late in the season, large leaf size, and good ground cover capabilities were identified and will be the focus of further study. Key words: Medicago lupulina, black medic, legume cover crops, self-regenerating cover crops, Canadian prairies, germplasm screening

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics→French-language works237,207→