MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6940790596 · doi:10.1139/cjps10159

Stainless oat

2011· article· en· W6940790596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRust (programming language)CultivarCrown (dentistry)SorghumHigh resistancePlant disease resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitchell Fetch, J. W., Brown, P. D., Ames, N., Chong, J., Fetch, Jr., T. G., Haber, S. M., Menzies, J. G., Townley-Smith, T. F. and Stadnyk, K. D. 2011. Stainless oat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 357-361. Stainless is a grey-hulled spring oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivar postulated to carry the crown rust resistance gene, Pc91, which was effective against the prevalent pathotypes of crown rust races on the Canadian prairies at the time of its release. Stainless could possibly also carry one or more of the crown rust resistance genes, Pc38, Pc39, and Pc68. It had very good resistance to loose and covered smut, good resistance to the prairie stem rust races (likely due to the presence of Pg2, Pg13, and Pga) and moderate tolerance to barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV). Stainless had high kernel weight, intermediate percent plump kernels, intermediate percent thin kernels, and high levels of total dietary fibre. Stainless exhibited high yielding capacity in the eastern portion of the Black soil zone of western Canada where resistance to rust diseases is important. Stainless was supported for registration by the Prairie Grain Development Committee in February 2007. Stainless was registered (Reg. No. 6422) on 2008 Apr. 07.

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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.025

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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207