Effect of Field Treatment on Microfloral Respiration and Storability of Canola under Different Storage Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether different field treatments such as straight cut, swathing, or pre-harvest aid application can influence the canola storage is the critical information for growers. The effect of these different field treatments on the infection and development of microflora on canola seeds with 9%, 11%, and 14% moisture content at 20°C, 25°C, 30°C and 35°C was determined. To evaluate the microfloral infection and development, concentration of CO2 and O2 in 150 g canola bulks were measured every 3 d. At the beginning and end of the study (66 d), the seed moisture content, germination, visible mold, invisible fungal infection, and yellow seed count were measured. The swathed and nature ripened canola had a slightly higher respiration rate at ≥30°C and ≥ 2 wk than the seeds with other field treatments. The swathed canola had a marginally lower initial germination and higher germination at 66 d. The Glyphosate treated and nature ripened canola seeds had a slightly higher chance of visible model development. However, all these differences were not significant at α = 0.05 level and different field treatments and storage conditions did not influence the yellow seed count.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".