Relationship between seed retention and a folded-leaf trait in reed canarygrass (<i>Phalaris arundinacea</i>L.)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A limitation to the increased use of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), a high-yielding perennial grass, is its poor seed retention. Efficient selection of reed canarygrass genotypes could be aided if morphological traits that are associated with agronomic characters such as seed retention could be identified. Folded-leaf progeny plants from a cross involving a seed-retaining clone were observed in a space-planted nursery. The objectives of this study were to determine whether the folded-leaf trait was associated with higher seed retention and other agronomic traits. Under solid-stand conditions, highly significant differences existed between folded- and flat-leaf polycross progeny plots for heading date and seed-retention percentage. The folded-leaf polycross progeny plots had higher seed-retention percentages and later heading dates than did the flat-leaf polycross progeny plots. Under space-planted conditions folded-leaf plants were significantly different from flat-leaf plants for height, panicle length, panicle number, and growth habit. The folded-leaf plants in this nursery were shorter, had a smaller panicle length, possessed more panicles, and were more upright in growth habit than were the flat-leaf plants.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it