MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366439465 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2022-0261

AAC Connery hard red spring wheat

2023· article· en· W4366439465 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Richard D. Cuthbert, R. M. DePauw, R. E. Knox, Amit Kumar Singh, Brent McCallum, T. Fetch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsStem rustBiologyCultivarRust (programming language)Test weightHorticultureSpring (device)AgronomySmutPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AAC Connery, a doubled haploid awnless hard red spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), was similar in grain yield to CDC Osler and significantly higher yielding than the other check cultivars Katepwa, CDC Teal, and AC Splendor. Wheat and flour protein concentrations were within the range of the checks. AAC Connery matured significantly later than AC Splendor and in a comparable number of days as Katepwa, CDC Teal, and CDC Osler. AAC Connery was significantly shorter than all of the checks and was significantly more resistant to lodging than Katepwa, AC Splendor, and CDC Osler. AAC Connery had significantly heavier kernel weight than Katepwa, CDC Teal, and AC Splendor. The test weight of AAC Connery was within the range of the checks. End-use quality specifications of AAC Connery are suitable for the Canada Western Red Spring wheat market class. AAC Connery expressed moderate resistance to Fusarium head blight, an improvement over the checks, resistance to prevalent races of stem rust and yellow rust, and moderate resistance to leaf rust, loose smut, and common bunt.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→