The results of study of collection samples of spring soft wheat in the Middle Volga Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the research, there were studied 186 varieties of spring soft wheat of different ecological and geographical origin to develop valuable initial material for new varieties in the conditions of Middle Volga. The studies were carried out in accordance with the methodic recommendations of VIR. According to the duration of the growing season, the samples were divided into three groups: early ripening – 29.4 %, mid-ripening – 45.0 % and mid-late-ripening – 25.6 %. The largest number of high-yielding varieties belongs to the mid-ripening group. Five groups are distinguished according to plant height: above 120 cm – tall, 120-105 cm – medium-grown, 104-85 cm – undersized, 84-60 cm – semi-dwarfs, less than 60 cm – dwarfs. A group of semi-dwarfs showed high resistance to lodging. The yield of productive genotypes in this group is 192-210 g/m2. The analysis of the elements of the yield structure showed the varieties that exceeded the standard in the number of grains in the ear (32.8 pcs.): Annet (38.2 pcs.), Baganskaya 95 (36.5 pcs.), Riks (37.7 pcs.), Lubninka (36.8 pcs.), (Russia, West Siberian Region), Biryusa (37.2 pcs.) (Russia, East Siberian Region), by grain weight per ear – Russian varieties from East Siberian, West Siberian and Lower Volga Regions (0.96-1.52 g), and varieties of foreign selection from North America (0.89-1.64 г). According to the yield the following varieties significantly exceeded the standard variety Kinelskaya Niva (310 g/m2) by 30-54 g/m2 (LSD05 = 22.5 g/m2): Russian varieties Annet, Baganskaya 95, Lavrusha, Tarskaya 10, Pamyati Maistrenko, Omskaya 39, Duet (West Siberian region), Voevoda (Lower Volga region) and Uyarochka (East Siberian region), foreign varieties Aktyube 10 (Kazakhstan) and Granit (Canada). The varieties with complex resistance to the main types of leaf diseases (leaf rust and powdery mildew) have been identified: Norwell, Granit, Dandy, CDC Merlin (Kanada), Lavrusha, Tarskaya 10 (West Siberian Region), Tybalt (Netherlands), Voevoda (Lower Volga Region), Etyud (Ukraine). The identified varieties were used as parental forms in crosses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".