MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959359654 · doi:10.1139/cjps2013-136

Macro-relationships between regional-scale field pea (Pisum sativum) selenium chemistry and environmental factors in western Canada

2013· article· en· W6959359654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeleniumEdaphicCultivarField peaGrowing seasonSpatial variabilityOrganic farmingAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Garrett, R. G., Gawalko, E., Wang, N., Richter, A. and Warkentin, T. D. 2013. Macro-relationships between regional-scale field pea (Pisum sativum) selenium chemistry and environmental factors in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 1059-1071. A baseline study of cultivar, temporal (2004-2006) and spatial variability in field pea (Pisum sativum) selenium (Se) concentration was undertaken in western Canada based on six common cultivars (295 samples) grown in 35 variety trials. Selenium was determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy following a HNO3 digestion. Non-significant differences in pea Se concentration occurred due to cultivar and temporal variability. Trial site soil organic C, pH, cation exchange capacity, soil texture estimates, and classifications were recovered from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Canadian Soil Information System database. Twenty-five percent of the pea Se variability was due to soil edaphic factors, particularly organic C and pH, this increased to 39% with inclusion of great soil group classification. The remaining variability was due to growing season weather conditions, with hotter drier summers leading to higher Se concentrations. Naturally Se biofortified pulses are available to be targeted to selenium deficient populations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.007 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207