MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068532535 · doi:10.4141/cjps09100

Burnside extra strong hard red spring wheat

2010· article· en· W2068532535 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
D. G. Humphreys, T. F. Townley‐Smith, O. M. Lukow, Brent McCallum, D. A. Gaudet, J. Gilbert, T. G. Fetch, J. G. Menzies, Dan Brown, E. Czarnecki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarSpring (device)Stem rustAgronomyRust (programming language)BiologyGrain yieldYield (engineering)Test weightMathematicsHorticultureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burnside is a hard, red, spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) that meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Extra Strong wheat class. Burnside was evaluated in the Canada Western Extra Strong Wheat Cooperative Test in 2000, 2001, and 2002. In comparison with CWES cultivars Glenlea, Bluesky, AC Corinne, and CDC Walrus, Burnside had higher grain yields than Bluesky and AC Corinne, was similar to Glenlea and lower yielding than CDC Walrus. Burnside had maturity similar to Bluesky and was earlier maturing than Glenlea, AC Corinne, and CDC Walrus. Burnside is resistant to moderately resistant to prevalent races of leaf and stem rust and resistant to loose smut. End-use quality tests showed that Burnside had significantly higher grain protein content than the check cultivars.Key words: Triticum aestivum L., Canada Western Extra Strong, hard red extra strong spring wheat, cultivar description, yield, disease 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207