MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2176078536 · doi:10.4141/cjps10024

Napoleon Amber durum wheat

2010· article· en· W2176078536 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
D. G. Humphreys, T. F. Townley‐Smith, D. Leisle, Brent McCallum, D. A. Gaudet, J. Gilbert, J. G. Menzies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyCultivarRust (programming language)AgronomyHorticultureStem rust

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Napoleon is an amber durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) that meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Amber Durum wheat class. Napoleon was evaluated in the Durum Cooperative Test in 1996, 1997 and 1998 as DT484. Overall, Napoleon had significantly higher grain yield than all checks except AC Avonlea, and Napoleon had higher grain yields in the Black soil zone compared with the Brown soil zone. Napoleon had maturity similar to AC Morse and AC Avonlea, but was 1 d earlier maturing than Kyle and 2 d later maturing than Hercules. Napoleon was similar to AC Avonlea in height, but was significantly taller than AC Morse, and significantly shorter than Kyle and Hercules. Napoleon had lower lodging scores than Hercules and Kyle, but had higher lodging scores than AC Avonlea and AC Morse. Napoleon is resistant to leaf rust, stem rust, and common bunt, and moderately susceptible to loose smut, leaf spot and Fusarium head blight. Napoleon is the first low cadmium durum cultivar registered in Canada.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
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 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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