MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2397548491 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0129

Influence of production systems on return and risk from malting barley production in western Canada

2016· article· en· W2397548491 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elwin G. Smith, T. Kelly Turkington, John T. O’Donovan, M. J. Edney, P. E. Juskiw, Ross H. McKenzie, K. Neil Harker, George W. Clayton, K. Xi, William E. May, R. B. Irvine, S.A. Brandt, Eric N. Johnson, S.M. Perkovic

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAlberta Crop Industry Development FundAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBrandon UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHordeum vulgareSativumAgronomyFungicideCropBiologyPisumField peaProduction (economics)PoaceaeHorticultureEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Profitable malting barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) production systems are required to reverse the decline in area seeded to malting barley in western Canada. Systems that could increase the profitability of growing malting barley considered the previous crop, nitrogen (N) rate, and fungicide application. The net return (NR) and risk for these systems were computed from western Canada field data. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate the impact of systems on NR over 21 site-years of field data. Risk was evaluated with a stochastic simulation model. NR was higher and risk lower for malting barley when the preceding crop was field pea (Pisum sativum L.), when fungicide was applied at the flag leaf stage for leaf disease control, and when N was 50% of the recommended N rate. Therefore, malting barley should be grown on field pea stubble at a lower N rate, with fungicide applied when there are leaf diseases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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