MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889798909 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n10p88

Influence of Seed Coat Color Genes on Milling Qualities of Red Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.)

2018· article· en· W2889798909 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maya Subedi, Lope G. Tabil, Albert Vandenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoatBiologyGenotypeHorticultureGray (unit)BotanyAgronomyGeneGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient milling is the key economic trait for the red lentil industry. Various seed characteristics including seed coat color can influence milling characteristics. Four basic seed coat ground colors (green, gray, tan, and brown) of 16 red lentil genotypes from a common genetic background were compared to determine the effect of seed coat color genes on three key milling quality traits: dehulling efficiency (DE), milling recovery (MR), and football recovery (FR). These genotypes were grown at two locations in Saskatchewan, Canada for two years. DE, MR, and FR results varied depending on the seed coat color conferred by specific genotypes. Green and gray seed coat color (homozygous recessive tgc allele) genotypes had significantly higher DE and MR percentages compared to brown or tan seed coat types (homozygous dominant Tgc allele) depending on genotype interaction with site-year. Seeds with brown or tan seed coats had significantly higher FR percentages in two site-years. Red cotyledon lentils with uniform shape and green or gray seed coat color might be more profitable for millers who wish to maximize DE and MR of red lentil, but brown seed coat color might be preferable in terms of FR.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207