MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606305941 · doi:10.1139/cjps2011-081

CDC Horizon forage pea

2012· article· en· W2606305941 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageCultivarSativumPowdery mildewAgronomyBiologyCropDry matterPisumField peaHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Warkentin, T., Kostuik, J., Klassen, E., Barlow, B., Ife, S., Tar'an, B. and Vandenberg, A. 2012. CDC Horizon forage pea. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 207-209. CDC Horizon is a forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivar released in 2010 by the Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, for distribution to Select seed growers in Saskatchewan and Alberta through the Variety Release Program of the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. CDC Horizon has a semileafless leaf type, high biomass production, good biomass quality, good seed yield, and resistance to powdery mildew (caused by Erysiphe pisi Syd.). It has superior lodging resistance to the check cultivars Trapper, 40-10 and CDC Sonata, but with slightly greater seed weight than Trapper and 40-10. CDC Horizon had similar lodging resistance and grain yield compared with the field pea check cultivar CDC Minuet. CDC Horizon had similar overall performance to CDC Leroy and CDC Tucker, but with 8-9% greater forage dry matter production, respectively.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.107 · 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