Relative performance of four midge-resistant wheat varietal blends in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orange wheat blossom midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), causes significant yield losses to \nspring wheat in western Canada in severe infestations. To mitigate losses, midge-resistant wheat \nvarietal blends, consisting of cultivars carrying the Sm1 midge resistance gene and 10% \ninterspersed midge susceptible refuge, have been made available to farmers. To test their \nperformance relative to conventional midge-susceptible cultivars, four varietal blends were \ngrown during four consecutive years, at eight locations in the provinces of Manitoba \nSaskatchewan and Alberta, in comparison to four conventional, midge-susceptible cultivars. \nMidge damage was higher in 2007 and 2010 than in 2008 and 2009. In general, the varietal \nblends, as a group, yielded more grain than the susceptible cultivars, especially when grown in \nenvironments with high midge pressure (5.5 - 35% seed damage). In environments with low \nmidge pressure (0 – 2.6% seed damage), the varietal blend average yield advantage was smaller \nbut still significant, indicating that some of the varietal blends had additional superior attributes, \nin addition to midge resistance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".