Comparing two-row and six-row barley for chemical composition with doubled-haploid lines Comparing two-row and six-row barley for chemical composition with doubled-haploid lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-row barley ( L. ) is likely to produce better feed quality than six-row barley because the former has greater test weight, greater seed weight, and larger seed size. A study was conducted to compare five feed-quality traits between two-row and six-row barley. In addition to the (two-row) locus, the effects of five other marker loci : (purple lemmas), (short rachilla hairs), (rough awns), (esterase 1), and (esterase 5) on the five traits were also studied. One hundred and ninety doubled-haploid (DH) lines were derived from a `Leger'/ `CI9831' cross using the bulbosum method. The DH lines and the two parents were evaluated for protein, starch, -glucan, neutral-detergent fibre (NDF), and acid-detergent fibre (ADF) content at two locations in Eastern Canada in 1993. Results showed that two-row lines contained 14 - 20% more protein, 4% less starch, and 6 - 7% more-glucan than six-row lines; while purple lemma lines contained 2 - 4% less NDF and 0 - 3% less ADF than yellow lemma lines. The . , , and genes had very little effect on the five traits. The results of this study suggested that selection for high protein or low glucan is possible in two-row/six-row crosses.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".