MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043213504 · doi:10.4141/cjps09114

Harvest hard red spring wheat

2010· article· en· W2043213504 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
S. L. Fox, T. F. Townley‐Smith, J. B. Thomas, D. G. Humphreys, P. D. Brown, Brent McCallum, T. Fetch, J. G. Menzies, J. Gilbert, M. R. Fernandez, D. A. Gaudet, J. S. Noll

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsCultivarRust (programming language)Test weightHorticultureBiologySpring (device)SproutingAgronomyStem rustYield (engineering)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harvest is a hard red spring wheat that meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Red Spring wheat class. Harvest is adapted to the wheat growing regions of the Canadian prairies based on data from the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative Registration Test conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and grown in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The overall grain yield of Harvest was significantly higher compared with the check cultivars Neepawa, Roblin, AC Majestic and AC Barrie, but yielded significantly less than the check cultivar McKenzie. Harvest matured similar to McKenzie and Neepawa, 1 d later than Roblin, 1 d earlier than AC Barrie and significantly earlier than AC Majestic. Harvest was significantly shorter than the check cultivars and had the lowest lodging scores. The test weight of Harvest was similar to McKenzie and AC Barrie and significantly higher than Neepawa, Roblin and AC Majestic. Harvest demonstrated moderate resistance to leaf rust and loose smut and very good resistance to stem rust. Resistance to common bunt was fair, similar to Neepawa and AC Barrie. Resistance to Fusarium head blight was similar to the susceptible check Roblin and poorer than the other checks. Harvest had very good preharvest sprouting resistance with lower sprouting scores than the best check in 2 of 3 years of testing, and it maintained its falling numbers after natural or artificial weathering of spikes. End-use quality tests indicated that Harvest was within the range of the checks for most end-use quality traits. Key words: Triticum aestivum L., cultivar description, red spring wheat, sprouting 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207