MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803277860 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2017-0338

Dry pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i> L.) protein, starch, and ash concentrations as affected by cultivar and environment

2018· article· en· W2803277860 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yesuf Assen Mohammed, Chengci Chen, Maninder K. Walia, Jessica A. Torrion, Kent McVay, P. F. Lamb, Perry R. Miller, J. Eckhoff, John H. Miller, Qasim A. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUSA Dry Pea and Lentil CouncilMontana Agricultural Experiment StationMontana State University
KeywordsCultivarStarchSativumPisumAgronomyDry matterRandomized block designCropDry weightArcadiaHorticultureBiologySowingChemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) is an important crop in the Northern Great Plains of the USA and Canada. Information on dry pea quality as affected by cultivars and environments is limited. This experiment determined the effects of dry pea cultivars and environments on protein, starch, and ash concentrations. Six dry pea cultivars (‘Arcadia’, ‘Bridger’, ‘CDC Striker’, ‘Cruiser’, ‘Montech 4152’, and ‘SW Midas’) were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with four replications in 22 environments. The results showed that cultivar × environment interaction effects were highly significant on protein, starch, and ash concentration (p < 0.0001). These interaction means, calculated on a dry matter basis, ranged from 145 to 278 g kg−1 seed for protein, 439 to 617 g kg−1 seed for starch, and 10.5 to 31.9 g kg−1 seed for ash. The differences among environmental means were substantial compared with cultivar means. When averaged over environments, ‘CDC Striker’, ‘Arcadia’, and ‘Montech 4152’ produced greater mean protein, starch, and ash concentrations, respectively, than the other cultivars. None of these cultivars simultaneously outperformed the others for protein, starch, and ash concentrations. This may indicate the need to develop cultivars with outstanding qualities across environments to receive satisfy premium end-user quality requirements.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207