Snowstar hard white spring wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".