MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090492430 · doi:10.3198/jpr2011.02.0074crg

Registration of ‘Yellowstone’ Winter Wheat Backcross–Derived Lines Incorporating Leaf Rust and Wheat Curl Mite Resistance

2011· article· en· W2090492430 on OpenAlexaff
Petrea Hofer, James E. Berg, Li Huang, R. J. Graf, Phil L. Bruckner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Registrations · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersMontana Board of Research and Commercialization TechnologyMontana Wheat and Barley CommitteeMontana Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsBiologyBackcrossingGermplasmRust (programming language)BotanyMiteHorticultureAgronomyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backcross‐derived hard red winter (HRW) wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) lines MT06X424‐B6 (Reg. No. GP‐871, PI 660987) and MT06X424‐B20 (Reg. No. GP‐872, PI 660988) (‘Yellowstone’*4/KS96WGRC40) were developed by transferring the resistance gene Lr41 for leaf rust (caused by Puccinia triticina Eriks.) and the resistance gene Cmc4 for wheat curl mite (WCM; Aceria tosichella Keifer) from HRW wheat germplasm KS96WGRC40 into Montana HRW wheat Yellowstone using marker‐assisted selection. Putatively resistant lines were selected with PCR markers in the BC 3 F 2 generation. Resistance to leaf rust and WCM was confirmed by screening under controlled conditions in the BC 3 F 3 and BC 3 F 4 generations, respectively. MT06X424‐B6 and MT06X424‐B20 are resistant to leaf rust (isolate PBJL) and wheat curl mite. MT06X424‐B6 is phenotypically similar to the recurrent parent Yellowstone. MT06X424‐B20 is shorter than Yellowstone and has low kernel polyphenol oxidase.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant RegistrationsSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207