MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884620320 · doi:10.1139/cjps2012-146

Snowstar hard white spring wheat

2013· article· en· W6884620320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpring (device)White (mutation)Test weightGrain yieldYield (engineering)Rust (programming language)FusariumGrain qualityCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humphreys, D. G., Townley-Smith, T. F., Czarnecki, E., Lukow, O. M., McCallum, B., Fetch, T., Gilbert, J., Menzies, J., Brown, D. and Fox, S. L. 2013. Snowstar hard white spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 143-148. Snowstar is a hard white spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) that represents an improvement in end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Hard White Spring wheat class compared with Snowbird. Snowstar was evaluated in the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative Test in 2003, and the Hard White Wheat Cooperative Test in 2004 and 2005. Snowstar appears best adapted to the longer season wheat-growing areas of the Canadian prairies. Snowstar was generally lower yielding than the check cultivars. However, in Zone 1 (Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan), Snowstar had 2% higher grain yield than CDC Teal (2003-2005) and 1.5% more than Snowhite475 (2004-2005). In 2003 and 2005 (Zone 1), Snowstar had grain yield approximately 3% more than Snowbird (data not shown). Snowstar was resistant or moderately resistant to the prevalent races of leaf rust and stem rust. Snowstar was susceptible to common bunt and loose smut. Snowstar was generally more resistant to Fusarium head blight than the check cultivars. Snowstar had higher test weight, flour yield and whiter flour as well as stronger dough compared with Snowbird.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.036 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207