MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2100927461 · doi:10.4141/cjps2011-151

AC Readymade and AC Tempest, selections from Redwin hard red winter wheat

2012· article· en· W2100927461 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
J. B. Thomas, R. J. Graf

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTempestCultivarGrain yieldAgronomyHorticultureTest weightWinter wheatStrawBiologyMathematicsArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thomas, J. B. and Graf, R. J. 2012. AC Readymade and AC Tempest, selections from Redwin hard red winter wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 355–361. AC Readymade and AC Tempest are hard red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars selected from the Montana cultivar ‘Redwin’ to conform to the kernel visual distinguishability requirements of the Canada Western Red Winter (CWRW) wheat class. AC Readymade and AC Tempest were registered in 1991 and 1999, respectively, following 3 yr of testing in the Western Winter Wheat Cooperative registration trials relative to various checks including Winalta, Norstar, CDC Clair and CDC Osprey. The survival characteristics of these cultivars demonstrated that they were well-suited to the relatively mild winter climate of southern Alberta. In this region of the prairies, AC Tempest had 4% higher grain yield than AC Readymade and was not significantly different from the other checks except Winalta, which was lower yielding. Both cultivars displayed relatively late maturity, moderate height, exceptional straw strength, high test weight, large kernels, high grain protein content and moderate resistance to common bunt. AC Tempest had significantly higher flour yield than AC Readymade.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→