Classification of canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) winter cultivars by secondary dormancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary dormancy is the major reason for seed persistence of canola (Brassica napus L.) in the soil. Volunteers emerging from the soil seed bank can lead to unwanted gene dispersal. More than 40 B. napus canola cultivars were tested for secondary dormancy under laboratory conditions. All cultivars were classified into groups of low, medium, and high dormancy by performing a cluster analysis. The results suggest that secondary dormancy is a cultivar-specific trait. Additionally, inter-year variation in dormancy indicates that it seems to be influenced by a set of environmental factors. Among years, classification of cultivars based on relative rank was more robust than classification based on absolute dormancy values. The classification of cultivars by their dormancy level would allow farmers to select and grow low-dormancy cultivars. Knowledge about the relative secondary dormancy of the currently grown cultivars could help growers and breeders lower canola seed bank persistence. Key words: Brassica napus, cluster analysis, genotype, secondary dormancy, soil seed bank
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".