MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079164043 · doi:10.4141/cjps08119

The relationship between frost tolerance and generative induction in winter wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.) under field conditions

2009· article· en· W2079164043 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. K. Bergjord, Anne Kjersti Bakken, A. O. Skjelvåg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBioforskNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsVernalizationFrost (temperature)photoperiodismBiologyBotanyGenerative grammarAgronomyHorticultureMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quantitative nature of the vernalization and photoperiod requirements and the interference of plant age with these mechanisms complicate predictions of generative induction and its relation to frost tolerance. This study was designed to dissect further the course of development towards full generative induction and to time the stages in frost tolerance. Two cultivars of winter wheat were regularly sampled from fields at four sites during three winters. The apex stage of development was observed at time of sampling and after 3 subsequent weeks of growth at 18°C, under either short or long days. Level of frost tolerance at sampling was also recorded. No visible change in apex appearance was found at time of sampling, but readiness of plants to initiate generative development was enhanced. Vernalization by low temperatures alone was not enough to induce the plants into generative development or initiate loss of frost tolerance. Short day conditions after sampling delayed the appearance of double ridges by 6-9 wk as compared with long day conditions. The timing of maximum frost tolerance and its subsequent decrease indicated that generative induction under the short day conditions prevailing in field occurred about 1 mo after vernalization saturation.Key words: Triticum aestivum L., frost tolerance, generative induction, vernalization, photoperiod

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207