MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065666235 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2000.84.8.892

Black Point Reaction of Durum and Common Wheat Cultivars Grown Under Irrigation in Southern Saskatchewan

2000· article· en· W2065666235 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. R. Fernandez, J. M. Clarke, R. M. DePauw, R. B. Irvine, R. E. Knox

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarBiologyAgronomyIrrigationCommon wheatTriticum turgidumWinter wheatCropHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six durum (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) and six common (T. aestivum L.) wheat cultivars were compared for reaction to black point under irrigation at two locations in southern Saskatchewan in 1990 to 1992 and 1994. There were individual varietal differences in black point levels within each of the species. The Canada Western Soft White Spring wheat Fielder was the most susceptible and the Canada Western Red Spring wheat Katepwa was the most resistant to black point. The location-cultivar-year interaction was a significant source of variation and a crossover cultivar-environment interaction was significant, suggesting that rank order of cultivars differed with environment. The durum wheat had significantly higher black point levels than the common wheat cultivars in three of the seven environments conducive to black point, two of which were in 1992, and had high overall black point levels. This greater black point severity on the durum wheat cultivars might have been due to cool, wet weather conditions and frosts during seed development that delayed ripening.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207