MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306427947 · doi:10.3198/jpr2015.03.0011crc

Registration of ‘Hidden Valley’ Meadow Fescue

2015· article· en· W2306427947 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Casler, G. E. Brink, J. H. Cherney, Edzard van Santen, M. W. Humphreys, Toshihiko Yamada, Ken‐ichi Tamura, Nicholas W. Ellison, Charles Opitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Registrations · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsBiologyForageAgronomyGermplasmPastureFestuca pratensisFestucaPoa pratensisRange (aeronautics)PopulationHayCultivarYield (engineering)PoaceaeLolium perenne

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Hidden Valley’ (Reg. No. CV-100, PI 674472) meadow fescue [Schedonorus pratensis (Huds.) P. Beauv.; syn. Festuca pratensis Huds.; syn. Lolium pratense (Huds.) Darbysh.] is a synthetic population originating from 561 parental genotypes. The original germplasm is of unknown central or northern European origin, but is thought to have become naturalized to the Driftless Area of the Upper Mississippi River Valley over approximately 100 yr. Hidden Valley has forage yield approximately 9% lower than orchardgrass and tall fescue, but neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD) approximately 9% higher than for these two species. Compared to the only other existing meadow fescue cultivar within this region, Hidden Valley has 2% higher forage yield and 1.4% higher NDFD. Hidden Valley is adapted to a wide range of pasture managements and conditions in USDA Hardiness Zones 3 to 5, especially the northern portions of this range.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant RegistrationsSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207