Six years of adaptive and on-farm spring cereal research in Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Livestock farmers in Newfoundland use most available land for forages. The local production of feed grains is negligible and expensive imported feed accounts for almost one half of farm operating expenses. Here, our objectives were to develop basic agronomic principles of mechanized spring grain production and to demonstrate grain production techniques to the Newfoundland farming community. Barley seeding date trials were conducted at five environments in eastern and western Newfoundland between 1996 and 1998. The relationship between soil pH and barley grain yield was explored through grid soil and yield sampling in two large fields in both 1997 and 1998. Between 1993 and 1998 over 20 livestock farmers throughout Newfoundland cooperated with the Newfoundland Grain Project, growing and comparing varieties of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and oats (Avena sativa L.) on their farms. Late seeding of barley in the spring/summer resulted in linear grain yield reductions. A levelling off of yield response did not occur at greater cumulated growing degree days, possibly because optimum accumulation for maximum barley yield potential does not occur in Newfoundland. Resistant regression lines, describing the relationship between soil pH and grain yield were developed for two barley varieties, indicated that Sterling reached a yield plateau around a soil pH 6 in 1998, while Chapais reached a yield plateau at soil pH 5.4 in 1997. Barley is well adapted to Newfoundland growing conditions, normally providing a high-yielding, mature grain of good feeding quality. Farmers collaborating with the project were generally impressed with the potential of growing barley for grain and some are now regularly doing so. Key words: Seeding date; barley; wheat; oats; precision farming research
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".