MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908226828

Contribution of kernel size to grain yield potential and sample uniformity of winter wheat

2001· article· en· W2908226828 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. L. Duggan, Brian Fowler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWinter wheatMathematicsYield (engineering)Grain yieldAgronomyStatisticsEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improvements in agronomic practices and cultivars have permitted the successful production of winter wheat on the Canadian prairies. In this study, the seed size of eleven winter wheat varieties grown under dry land and irrigation in each of two years was measured to determine if kernel size and position in the spikelet were important restrictions to cultivar grain yield potential and sample uniformity. Varietal differences in the weight of kernels in the A and B positions in the spikelet varied by more than 20 percent indicating that there is considerable genetic variation available in the wheat gene pool for this character. Kernel size of the C and D positions decreased to approximately 75 and 50 percent, respectively, of the average A and B positions in both dry land and irrigation environments. Artificially reducing floret numbers by 25 and 50 percent to increase assimilate supply to the remaining seeds did not influence seed size under irrigation. In contrast, kernel weight increased as the number of spikelets spike-1 decreased indicating that assimilate supply during grain filling and not restrictions imposed by kernel size determine grain yield of winter wheat grown on dry land in western Canada.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207