MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036447455 · doi:10.4141/cjps09087

Superb hard red spring wheat

2010· article· en· W2036447455 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
T. F. Townley‐Smith, D. G. Humphreys, E. Czarnecki, O. M. Lukow, Brent McCallum, T. G. Fetch, J. Gilbert, Jim G. Menzies, P. D. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarBiologySpring (device)AgronomySmutRust (programming language)Stem rustFusariumPlant disease resistanceLeaf spotBlightSproutingHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superb is a hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) adapted to the wheat-growing regions of the Canadian prairies, and meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Hard Red Spring wheat class. Superb was evaluated in the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative Registration Test in 1997, 1998 and 1999. Superb yielded significantly more than the cultivars Neepawa, Roblin, AC Majestic, and 5500HR and slightly more than McKenzie. Superb was resistant to leaf and stem rust. Its disease reaction was “intermediate” to loose smut and common root rot, and moderately resistant to common bunt. Leaf spot reaction of Superb was similar to the checks and its reaction to Fusarium head blight was intermediate. Key words: Triticum aestivum L., Canada Western Hard Red, hard red spring wheat, cultivar description, yield, pre-harvest sprouting tolerance, disease resistance

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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.192
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 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

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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