MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138841241 · doi:10.4141/p06-139

Snowbird hard white spring wheat

2007· article· en· W2138841241 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
D. G. Humphreys, T. F. Townley‐Smith, E. Czarnecki, O. M. Lukow, Brent McCallum, T. Fetch, J. Gilbert, J. G. Menzies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeptoriaCultivarRust (programming language)Spring (device)HorticultureAgronomyWhite (mutation)FusariumBiologyMathematicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snowbird is a hard white spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) that meets the end-use quality and kernel visual distinguishability specifications of the Canada Western Hard White Spring Wheat class. Snowbird was evaluated in the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative Test in 1998, 1999 and 2000, and was found to be adapted to the wheat-growing regions of the Canadian prairies. Snowbird yielded more than the check cultivars Neepawa, Roblin, AC Majestic, McKenzie, Harvest, and AC Barrie but less than McKenzie. Snowbird is resistant to the prevalent races of leaf rust and moderately resistant to stem rust, loose smut and common root rot. Snowbird and Roblin exhibited similar levels of resistance to tanspot, Septoria tritici, and Septoria nodorum while its reaction to Fusarium head blight was similar to that of AC Barrie. Snowbird has similar grain and flour protein content as other check cultivars but had 1% less protein compared to Roblin. Key words: Triticum aestivum L., Canada Western Hard White, hard white spring wheat, cultivar description, yield, disease resistance

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207