Effects of foliar fungicides on kernel black point of wheat in southern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to determine the effect of fungicides on the incidence of black point in wheat (Triticum spp.) in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. Experiment 1 was conducted at Swift Current and Indian Head for 3 years. Folicur 3.6F (tebuconazole) and Bravo 500 (chlorothalonil) were applied at different growth stages from stem elongation to head emergence. Three spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum) and three durum wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum) genotypes were used in this study. Experiment 2 was conducted at Indian Head for 3 years. Folicur 3.6F was applied from stem elongation to early milk stage for a durum cultivar. The incidence of black point was very low at Swift Current. Severe black point incidence occurred at Indian Head in 1999, which could be related to low temperature and high rainfall during the grain filling stage. Durum wheat cultivars had higher black point incidence than the common wheat cultivars. Fungicide applications from stem elongation to flag emergence could increase black point infection and it was, in many cases, associated with an increase in kernel mass. Fungicide applications at or after head emergence could reduce the incidence of black point, although this was not consistent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".