MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037145601

Determination of Malting Barley Cultivars Suitable for Tokat-Kazova Conditions

2004· article· en· W7037145601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarTurkishHordeum vulgareTest weightPrecipitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to determine suitable malting barley cultivars for Kazova plain in Tokat province in 2001-02 and 2003-03 growing periods. Two Turkish cultivars, Tokak 157/37 and Bülbül-89, a high quality Canadian malting barley cultivar, Harrington, and 15 other foreign cultivars evaluated by Efes Pilsen malting company throughout Turkey were used. Most cultivars had grain yields over five tons per hectare, 1000-seed weights of 40-50 g and test weights of 68-70 kg in 2001-02 period in which precipitation during the growing period was similar to long term average. However, some cultivars including the two Turkish cultivars seriously lodged in this year. In 2002-03 period, in which precipitation was seriously lower than long term average, grain yields of most cultivars were around 3,0-3,5 tons per hectare, 1000-seed weights 40-50 g, and test weights 67-69 kg. Turkish cultivar Tokak 157/37 had yields similar to high yielding cultivars and quite good malting quality indications. Among cultivars of foreign origin, Anita, Lagoda, Prosa, Madras, Asso and Pacific seemed to be suitable for the region. However, in order to fully establish the malting barley production potential of the region, additional studies covering other ecologies of the region and including detailed malt analyses are necessary.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDergiPark (Istanbul University)Same topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207