Relationship between seed retention and a folded-leaf trait in reed canarygrass (<i>Phalaris arundinacea</i>L.)
Bibliographic record
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".