Redcliff hard red spring wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Redcliff hard red spring wheat was developed at the University of Alberta using a modified bulk breeding method. In 3 years of evaluation in the Parkland Cooperative test from 2018 to 2020, Redcliff produced 7.3% more grain and matured 1.9 days earlier than the highest yielding check Carberry. Redcliff had 3.9 cm taller plants than Carberry but shorter than the other checks and displayed good lodging tolerance. The test weight of Redcliff was slightly higher than Carberry and Parata but lower than Glenn. The grain weight of Redcliff was higher than Parata and similar to the other checks. Grain protein content was within the range of the checks. Redcliff was rated “resistant” to the prevalent races of stem rust, “resistant” to “moderately resistant” to Fusarium head blight, “intermediate” to leaf and stripe rusts, whereas “moderately susceptible” to common bunt. Three years of end-use quality evaluation have indicated that Redcliff is acceptable for the Canada Western Red Spring wheat market class, with improvements in flour yield.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".