Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fox, S. L., Wise, I. L., Smith, M. A. H., Humphreys, D. G., Brown, P. D., McCallum, B. D., Fetch, T. G., Menzies, J. G., Gilbert, J. A., Fernandez, M. R., Despins, T., Lukow, O. and Niziol, D. 2013. Shaw hard red spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 299-305. Shaw is a hard red spring wheat that meets the end-use quality specifications of the Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) class. Shaw contains the antibiosis resistance gene Sm1, which is effective against the wheat midge larvae (Sitodiplosis mosellana Géhin). Shaw is derived from the cross Harvest/BW313. Shaw was found to be adapted to the eastern wheat growing regions of the Canadian prairies as represented in the Central Bread Wheat Cooperative (CBWC) Registration Test in 2006, 2007 and 2008. For registration testing, the performance of Shaw was estimated using a varietal blend called BW394 which consisted of 90% Shaw and 10% BA51*C222 (a midge-susceptible sibling of Shaw). In this report, Shaw VB refers to BW394. In comparison to the check cultivars (Katepwa, McKenzie, CDC Teal, Unity VB, and 5603HR), Shaw was the highest yielding cultivar overall; although not significant, Shaw was 1% higher yielding than Unity VB. Shaw matured significantly earlier than 5603HR. The plant stature of Shaw was significantly taller than all of the checks except Katepwa, but had similar lodging resistance scores as the checks. The test weight of Shaw was significantly higher than Katepwa and CDC Teal and within the range of the other checks. Shaw expressed resistance to leaf rust, stem rust and common bunt; susceptibility to fusarium head blight and to loose smut. Shaw had preharvest sprouting resistance with an overall sprouting score similar to the best checks McKenzie, Unity VB and 5603HR. The end-use suitability attributes of Shaw were within the range of the checks for all traits except for having significantly larger seeds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".