MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059025599 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.09.0539

An Indoor Screening Method for Improvement of Freezing Tolerance in Alfalfa

2009· article· en· W2059025599 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yves Castonguay, R. Michaud, Paul Nadeau, Annick Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFreezing toleranceBiologyCultivarHardiness (plants)AgronomySelection (genetic algorithm)Frost (temperature)ForageHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freezing tolerance is a determinant factor of persistence of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) grown in northern climates. Selection for winter hardiness in field nurseries is difficult because of the unpredictability of the occurrence of test winters allowing the identification of hardy genotypes. A method of selection entirely performed indoor in growth chambers and walk‐in freezers has been applied for the identification of genotypes with superior freezing tolerance. Using that approach, cultivars recommended for growth in eastern Canada have been submitted to cycles of recurrent selection to generate populations potentially more tolerant to freezing (TF). Subsequent determination of the freezing tolerance of populations recurrently selected using plants acclimated to natural hardening conditions in an unheated greenhouse revealed a progressive increase in response to this selection approach. Field assessment of TF populations also showed better survival and forage yield than original cultivars at sites that experienced severe winter conditions. At stressed sites, a significant proportion of the variance in the yields of the populations was explained by freezing tolerance potential. Our results show that major increases in freezing tolerance (between 3 and 5°C) of alfalfa and better survival to severe winter conditions in the field can be achieved by screening for freezing tolerance under indoor growing conditions and intercrossing the selected plants.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207