MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1664911875 · doi:10.7202/706233ar

Reproduction of Pratylenchus penetrans on various rotation crops in Quebec

2005· article· en· W1664911875 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. Bélair, Yvon Fournier, Nathalie Dauphinais, O. P. Dangi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Environmental Renewal Canada (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPratylenchus penetransAgronomySecaleCrop rotationPopulationLolium perenneForagePennisetumCropNematodePoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reproduction of the root-lesion nematode Pratylenchus penetrans was assessed on 12 rotation crops under greenhouse conditions. Brown mustard (Brassica juncea) was the best host and increased the initial population by 17.2 times. Soybean (Glycine max), Japanese millet (Echinochloa frumentacea), rape (B. napus), buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum), white mustard (B. hirta), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) were also very efficient in multiplying the nematode and were not significantly different from rye (Secale cereale), a standard host crop. Foxtail millet (Setaria italica), oats (Avena sativa), corn (Zea mays), and bromegrass (Bromus inermis) increased the initial population by 5.8, 5.7, 4.5, and 3.2 times respectively, but significantly less than rye. Forage pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) was the poorest host with a reproduction rate of 0.4. These results indicate that most commonly recommended rotation crops are suitable for the build up of P. penetrans populations in the soil with the exception of forage pearl millet. This annual crop has a great potential as a rotation crop for controlling the root-lesion nematode in Quebec.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207