MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347046568 · doi:10.1094/cchem-07-15-0147-r

Detection of Incipient Germination in Malting Barley with a Starch Viscosity Method and a Proposed Ethanol Emission Method

2016· article· en· W2347046568 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne T. Buckley, Marta S. Izydorczyk, W. G. Legge

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsGerminationChemistryStarchRelative humidityViscosityFood scienceHorticultureBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk of germination loss during storage in two‐row malting barley can be reduced by identifying grain lots that have undergone incipient germination (IG) during harvest. A method based on starch viscosity that utilizes a Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA) is currently available for IG analysis. A new potential method, based on the measurement of ethanol emission (EE) from whole barley, may be more efficient and less expensive than the RVA procedure. Three storage experiments were performed: experiments 1 and 3 at 25°C and 80% rh, and experiment 2 in unheated, uninsulated buildings. Decline in germination energy (GE) varied from <1% to about 80% during storage. In experiments 1 and 3, R 2 for GE loss (expressed as [weeks to 5% loss of GE] 0.2 ) versus EE was 0.76 in both cases, whereas R 2 for GE loss versus RVA viscosity was 0.64 and 0.68, respectively. In experiment 2, the greatest loss of GE was associated with high temperatures and relative humidity in July and August. EE performed as well as RVA in the prediction of germination loss in all three trials. Although further evaluation of the EE method is required, it appears to be a promising alternative to the RVA technique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207