Leaf spotting reaction of spring common, durum and spelt wheat, and Kamut under organic management in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fernandez, M. R., Fox, S. L., Hucl, P. and Singh, A. K. 2014. Leaf spotting reaction of spring common, durum and spelt wheat, and Kamut under organic management in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 929-935. A 3-yr field study (2010 to 2012) was conducted in southwest Saskatchewan to determine the reaction of common, durum and spelt wheat cultivars currently registered in western Canada, and of Kamut wheat, to the leaf spot disease complex (LS) under organic management. The genotypes selected for this study are often grown by organic producers in this region. Overall, the most common LS diseases observed had been observed in previous studies under conventional management in the same area. For all 3 yr, common wheat cultivars with the highest LS scores were AC Barrie, CDC Go, Superb, and Unity, while those with the lowest scores were AC Andrew, CDC Bounty and Lillian. For durum wheat, Kyle had overall the greatest LS scores. CDC Zorba had lower LS scores than the other spelt wheat, CDC Origin, and it also had the lowest LS levels of all genotypes in this study. Kamut wheat was similar to the common and durum wheat cultivars for LS severity. The relative presence of the most common LS pathogens isolated (Pyrenophora tritici-repentis, Phaeosphaeria nodorum, Phaeosphaeria avenaria f. sp. triticea, Cochliobolus sativus, Mycosphaerella graminicola) from each of the four wheat species in each of the three years is also presented and discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".