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

CDC Horizon forage pea

2012· article· en· W2606305941 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas D. Warkentin, Jeff Kostuik, Eric Klassen, Brent Barlow, Scott Ife, Bunyamin Tar’an, Albert Vandenberg

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207