MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253393342 · doi:10.4141/cjps06030

Leggett Oat

2007· article· en· W4253393342 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jennifer W. Mitchell Fetch, S. D. Duguid, P. D. Brown, J. Chong, T. G. Fetch, S. M. Haber, Jim G. Menzies, Nancy Ames, J. Noll, T. Aung, K. D. Stadnyk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvenaRust (programming language)CultivarBarley yellow dwarfAgronomyBiologyCrown (dentistry)Test weightPlant disease resistanceHorticulturePlant virusMaterials scienceVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leggett is the first oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivar released in western Canada carrying the crown rust resistance gene Pc94. Leggett carries the crown rust resistance combination Pc68 and Pc94, which provides good resistance to the crown rust populations currently present on the eastern Canadian Prairies. As a result of the presence of Pc94 providing resistance to oat crown rust, this line should exhibit excellent yield stability in the rust-prone regions of the prairies. Leggett has very good resistance to loose and covered smut, resistance to the prevalent races of oat stem rust other than NA67, but poor tolerance to barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV). Leggett has kernel characteristics suited to milling end uses, with high test weight and 1000-kernel weight and high percent plump kernels. The beta-glucan content of Leggett is equal to or higher than that of the checks, making it a desirable milling quality cultivar. Key words: Oat, Avena sativa L., cultivar description, crown rust resistance, milling oat, Pc94

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207