Amigo brown condiment mustard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amigo, brown condiment mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] had, on average over 30 locations, the same grain yield as Common Brown in Co-op mustard tests 2004-2006 and was well adapted to the mustard-growing areas of the Canadian prairies. Amigo had the same maturity and plant height as Common Brown. Amigo had 3.3% lower fixed oil content and 2.0% greater seed protein content, highly significant improvements in a brown mustard cultivar. Seed weight of Amigo was similar to that of Common Brown. Amigo had very high allyl isothiocyanate content of 13.15 mg g-1 seed compared with Common Brown at 9.35 mg g-1 seed, levels of allyl isothiocyanate typically found in oriental mustard. The allyl isothiocyanate content of AC Vulcan oriental mustard was 12.96 mg g-1 seed in Co-op Mustard Tests at the same locations and years, not statistically different from Amigo. The high allyl isothiocyanate content was incorporated from AC Vulcan into Amigo, through cross breeding and pedigree selection as was the resistance to white rust race 2a. The strategy to transfer disease resistance and seed quality from oriental mustard to brown mustard was successful.Key words: Brassica juncea (L.) Czern., cultivar description, disease resistance, seed quality
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".