MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3048199267 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2020-0148

AAC Redstar hard red spring wheat

2020· article· en· W3048199267 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Andrew Burt, D. G. Humphreys, J. Mitchell Fetch, David Green, T. G. Fetch, Brent McCallum, J. G. Menzies, Reem Aboukhaddour, María Antonia Henríquez, Santosh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsCultivarStem rustRust (programming language)Test weightBiologyHorticultureAgronomySmutSpring (device)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AAC Redstar is an early maturing, high-yielding hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar that is well adapted to the northern Canadian Prairies and eligible for grades of Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat. Over 3 yr (2016–2018) of testing in the Parkland Wheat Cooperative registration trials, AAC Redstar was 11% higher yielding than AC Splendor, 6% higher than Parata, and 4% higher than Glenn and Carberry. AAC Redstar matured 3 d earlier than Glenn, 2 d earlier than Carberry, and had similar maturity to Parata. AAC Redstar was shorter than all checks except Carberry and had better lodging resistance compared with all the check cultivars in the registration trial. The test weight and thousand-kernel weight of AAC Redstar were similar to Carberry. The grain protein concentration of AAC Redstar was 0.2% lower than Carberry. AAC Redstar was rated moderately resistant to Fusarium head blight, leaf rust, stripe rust, and common bunt. AAC Redstar had resistant reactions to loose smut and stem rust. AAC Redstar was registered under the CWRS market 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→