MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081848805 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.04-0021

Estimating Out‐Crossing Rates in Spring Wheat Cultivars Using the Contact Method

2006· article· en· W2081848805 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. G. Lawrie, M. A. Matus‐Cádiz, Pierre Hucl

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarBiologySpring (device)AgronomyGreenhousePoaceaeSeedingHorticultureAleuroneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) is a self‐pollinated species with out‐crossing (OC) rates assumed to be less than 1%. The objective of this study was to evaluate the OC rates for 35 Canadian spring wheat cultivars grown under greenhouse conditions. Recipient cultivars were crossed with Purendo‐38, a blue aleurone wheat, using direct spike contact inside glassine bags. Four seeding dates were used in each of two greenhouse experiments (2001 and 2002). Out‐crossing rates ranged from 0 to 2.8% (2001) and 0 to 3.5% (2002), with the exception of ‘Glenlea’ and ‘Wildcat’. Only Glenlea (10.6% [2001]; 8.6% [2002]) and Wildcat (6.3% [2001]; 4.2% [2002]) displayed consistently elevated levels of OC.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207