Wheat and barley varietal replacement in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at varietal replacement of wheat and barley by province in \nwestern Canada with respect to the rate of varietal replacement and varietal concentration. A varietal replacement index (VRI) is calculated to represent the rate of varietal replacement using Canadian Wheat Board annual variety survey data for the years 1998-99 to 2004-05. It was hypothesized that the province of Manitoba would have the highest rate of varietal replacement followed by Saskatchewan and then by Alberta. This is based on the claim by researchers that, due mainly to higher rainfall and humidity, the incidence of crop disease is greater in that part of the prairies east of a line drawn through Moose Jaw and Melfort Saskatchewan, and therefore farmers change their varieties more often. The VRIs for the three provinces confirm the hypothesis for Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat and for malting barley varieties. The hypothesis does not hold for Canada Western Amber Durum (CWAD) and Canada Prairie Spring Red (CPSR) wheat but holds for Canada Western Red Winter (CWRW). This was expected given the relative importance of these markets and corresponding research budgets compared to CWRS. However, a relatively high concentration ratio for CWAD was not expected given the importance of the CWAD market and the varietal research budgets devoted to this class of wheat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".