MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6940905546 · doi:10.1139/cjps2013-286

Peace hard red spring wheat

2014· article· en· W6940905546 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem rustSpring (device)CultivarRust (programming language)SmutYield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humphreys, D. G., Townley-Smith, T. F., Lukow, O. M., McCallum, B. D., Fetch, T. G., Gilbert, J. A., Menzies, J. G., Tkachuk, V., Brown, P. D. and Fox, S. L. 2014. Peace hard red spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1297-1302. Peace is a hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) adapted to the shorter-season wheat-growing regions of the Canadian prairies. Peace was evaluated in the Parkland Wheat Cooperative Test in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Peace exhibited grain yield similar to the check cultivars over 2 yr (1999-2000; Neepawa and Roblin) and over 3 yr (1999-2001; AC Barrie and AC Splendor) Peace matured a day earlier than AC Barrie but was 2 d later than AC Splendor over 3 yr of testing (1999-2001) and was a day later than Neepawa and Roblin over 2 yr of testing (1999-2000). Peace had test weight similar to the check cultivars. Peace was moderately resistant to leaf rust and loose smut and resistant to stem rust including the highly virulent Ug99 race of stem rust and common bunt. Peace was moderately susceptible to Fusarium head blight. Peace meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Red Spring wheat class.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.016 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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