MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920825693

Genotype difference in kernel discolorations in CWRS and CWAD wheats

2003· article· en· W2920825693 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Wang, M. R. Fernandez, T. N. McCaig, Yantai Gan, R. M. DePauw, J. M. Clarke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsKernel (algebra)Combinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kernel discolorations of wheat, such as black point (including smudge and penetrated smudge), red smudge and Fusarium-damaged kernel (FDK), are important downgrading factors in western Canada. This study was undertaken to determine cultivar differences in incidences of these kernel discolorations and their downgrading effects in CWRS and CWAD wheats. Grain samples were taken at maturity from six CWRS and four CWAD cultivars in a four-year (1997-2000) field study at six sites: one in the Grey soil zone, two in the Brown soil zone and three in the Black soil zone in western Canada. For CWRS cultivars, Garnet tended to have lower incidences in black point, smudge and FDK and resulted in the least downgrading compared with other CWRS cultivars. For CWAD cultivars, Kyle tended to have lower incidence of black point, Plenty had less smudge caused downgrading effects, DT 369 had lower penetrated smudge incidence, but higher red smudge incidence, and Plenty tended to have severer FDK-caused downgrading effects compared with other CWAD cultivars. CWAD class had higher frequency of downgrading than CWRS class and it usually had higher incidences of all kernel discolorations (black point, smudge, penetrated smudge, red smudge and FDK) and greater downgrading effects than CWRS class.

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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207