MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study of soft wheat varieties in the southern part of the Volga-Vyatka region

2020· article· en· W3080310282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. Ivanova

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural science Euro-North-East · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityYield (engineering)GeographyVolga regionAgronomyHorticultureBiologyAncient historyEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides the results of studying the varieties of spring soft wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) of various ecological and geographical groups in the conditions of the Chuvash Republic for 2016-2019. The objects of the study were presented by 72 varieties and variety samples of spring soft wheat of Russian and foreign selection (Belarus, Canada, USA, Kazakhstan, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Australia). The Simbircit variety zoned in the Volga-Vyatka region (Russia) was used as standard. Low adaptability of most of the studied varieties to the soil and climate conditions of the region due to the strong variability of yield was established. Two Russian varieties Arhat and Icarus with a relatively high coefficient of adaptability (0.71-0.72) exceeded the standard variety in yield by 0.68 and 0.67 t/ha or 18.2 and 18.0 %, respectively. By productive bushiness (53.8-61.5 % higher than the standard), Binni (Australia), Mercana and Omskaya 41 (Russia) were distinguished; by plant height (10.6-14.7 %) – Ekada 113, Mercana and Yulia (Russia); by ear length (13.4-22.0 %) – Mutant ostistyj (Belarus), Raduga and Mis (Russia); by the number of grains in the ear (25.3-34.3 %) – Icar, Ekaterina and Agata (Russia); by weight of grains in the ear (14.8 %) – Arhat and Ekada 113 (Russia); by weight of 1000 grains (4.5 % higher than the standard) – Margarita (Russia). Twelve varieties with strong relation between yield and elements of productivity (R ˃ 0.7) have been selected.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural science Euro-North-EastSame topicAgricultural Productivity and Crop ImprovementFrench-language works237,207