MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051004700 · doi:10.4141/p99-146

Early tall determinate soybean genotype E1E1e3e3e4e4dt1dt1 sets high bottom pods

2000· article· en· W2051004700 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elroy R. Cober, J. Madill, H. D. Voldeng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutions3M (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndeterminateCultivarPoint of deliveryIndeterminate growthMain stemStatically indeterminateBiologyYield (engineering)AgronomyIdeotypeHorticultureMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The height of bottom pods on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plants can be a major factor affecting seed loss at harvest. Tall determinate lines have been observed to have bottom pods set higher compared with indeterminate cultivars. This study was conducted to compare bottom pod height and other agronomic characteristics of indeterminate cultivars and elite tall determinate lines. Ten indeterminate cultivars and ten tall determinate lines adapted to maturity group 00 to I were evaluated at Ottawa (45°23′N lat.) and Winchester (45°6′N lat.), Ontario, in 1996 and 1997. Bottom pods on tall determinate lines were set almost twice as high as bottom pods on indeterminate cultivars. While main stem height did not differ between the two stem types, indeterminate plants had 0.2 more main stem nodes and two additional reproductive nodes than the tall determinate lines. Tall determinate lines yielded only 90% of the indeterminate cultivars and had smaller seeds and increased lodging. These results suggest that tall determinate lines may be valuable in environments where harvesting losses result from low bottom pods, but they still require further agronomic improvement to overcome yield limitations. Key words: Soybean, determinate, pod height, Glycine max (L.) Merr.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207