MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055730092

Does Wheat Cultivar Choice Affect Crop Quality and Soil Microbial Communities in Cropping Systems?
\n

2008· other· en· W7055730092 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsCultivarOrganic farmingCroppingMicrobial population biologyCropCropping systemSoil qualityPoaceaeSoil organic matter
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars may have differential effects on soil microbial communities and the breadmaking quality of harvested grain. We compared six Canadian spring wheat cultivars under organic and conventional management systems for yield, breadmaking quality and soil phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA) profile. Yields were lower, but protein levels were higher in the organic system. Cultivars differed for quality traits, but all cultivars had acceptable levels for processing. There were small differences in PLFA profiles for cultivars in the conventional system, but none in the organic system. More significant correlations between grain quality and PLFA measures were present in the organic system. Protein levels and breadmaking quality at least equal to conventional systems can be achieved in organic systems. Wheat cultivars differed for grain quality in both organic and conventional systems, and culivars altered the soil microbial profile in conventional systems. Microbes may play a greater role in determining crop quality in organic systems than in conventional systems.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207