MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207556061 · doi:10.3390/plants10102220

Breeding Canola (Brassica napus L.) for Protein in Feed and Food

2021· review· en· W3207556061 on OpenAlexafffund
Kenny K. Y. So, Robert W. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanola Council of Canada
KeywordsCanolaBrassicaCommercializationBiotechnologyBiologyBiofortificationBusinessAgronomyMarketingChemistryMicronutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L.). In response to this interest, scientists have been tasked with altering and optimizing the protein production chain to ensure canola proteins are safe for consumption and economical to produce. Specifically, the role of plant breeders in developing suitable varieties with the necessary protein profiles is crucial to this interdisciplinary endeavour. In this article, we aim to provide an overarching review of the canola protein chain from the perspective of a plant breeder, spanning from the genetic regulation of seed storage proteins in the crop to advancements of novel breeding technologies and their application in improving protein quality in canola. A review on the current uses of canola meal in animal husbandry is presented to underscore potential limitations for the consumption of canola meal in mammals. General discussions on the allergenic potential of canola proteins and the regulation of novel food products are provided to highlight some of the challenges that will be encountered on the road to commercialization and general acceptance of canola protein as a dietary protein source.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207