MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406501625 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2024-0208

AAC Walker Canada Western Red Spring Wheat

2025· article· en· W4406501625 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kirby T. Nilsen, Denis Green, Brent McCallum, J. G. Menzies, Reem Aboukhaddour, María Antonia Henríquez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsSpring (device)BiologyAgronomyWinter wheatGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AAC Walker (BW1116) is a hollow-stemmed, awned, and high yielding Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat cultivar suited to the growing conditions of western Canada. AAC Walker was 7% higher yielding than AAC Brandon and 5% higher yielding than AAC Viewfield in the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative (CBWC) registration trials (2020–2022). AAC Walker had maturity, height, and lodging similar to Carberry. It was 11 cm shorter than Unity. The test weight of AAC Walker was similar to AAC Brandon and 1000-kernel weight similar to AAC Viewfield. The grain protein content of AAC Walker was 0.6 units lower than AAC Brandon. AAC Walker expressed moderately resistant reaction to Fusarium head blight ( Fusarium spp.) and common bunt ( Tilletia caries (DC) Tul. & C. Tul.). AAC Walker was resistant to prevalent races of leaf rust ( Puccinia triticina Erikss.), stem rust ( Puccinia graminis Pers. f. sp. tritici Eriks. & E. Henn), and stripe rust ( Puccinia striiformis Westend) prevalent in western Canada. AAC Walker was resistant to orange wheat blossom midge ( Sitodiplosis mosellana Géhin). AAC Walker was deemed to fit the CWRS wheat class by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) and registered with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.011

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207