MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091182409 · doi:10.1111/jac.12097

Evaluation of Flax Genotypes for Cold Tolerance and Yield in South‐East Texas

2014· article· en· W2091182409 on OpenAlexaff
Murali Darapuneni, Gaylon D. Morgan, Amir M. H. Ibrahim, Robert W. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agronomy and Crop Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCropYield (engineering)AgronomyGenotypeBiologyBiotechnologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flax is an established crop in many parts of the world due to its positive health effects and numerous industrial uses. Due to increasing interest in biofuels, flax has been evaluated throughout the U.S.A. as a potential biodiesel crop. The main purpose of this research was to evaluate current and historical genotypes of flax in different regions of south‐east Texas. Twenty genotypes of flax were evaluated under dryland conditions for their agronomic and yield potential in College Station and McGregor, TX starting in 2008 thru 2011. The results suggest that all genotypes developed in Texas showed acceptable cold tolerance compared with genotypes developed in other locations. There were significant genotype–environment interactions (P < 0.001). A cross between Caldwell/Dillman (Texas genotype) was highly adapted to the environments of south‐east Texas. Nekoma and York (genotypes developed in North Dakota) yielded well in non‐cold years (>28 ° F) at College Station. Utilization of cold tolerance trait identified in Texas genotypes coupled with high yield potential of modern genotypes would have a significant impact on yield improvement of flax in south‐east Texas. Overall, flax is well adapted to growth in the area surrounding College Station, TX and has potential as an oilseed crop for production in south‐east Texas.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agronomy and Crop ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207