Response of Chinese Cabbage Cultivars to Petiole Spotting and Bacterial Soft Rot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine chinese cabbage ( Brassica campestris ssp. pekinensis group var. cephalata ) cultivars were evaluated for petiole spotting (gomasho) and bacterial soft rot (caused by Erwinia carotovora ssp. carotovora ) in 1999 and fifteen in 2000 and 2001. The cultivars were arranged in a randomized complete block design in a Granby sandy loam soil with six replications in 1999 and three replications in 2000 and 2001, at the Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Harrow, Ontario, Canada. Plants were harvested in the fall of each year during two harvest periods, one for early-maturing cultivars, and one for late-maturing cultivars. At harvest, the percent bacterial soft rot, percent marketable heads, plant size, uniformity of harvest maturity, and the mean head weight were determined for each cultivar. The number and weight of spotted leaves was determined by rating (0 to 5 scale) each leaf. Petiole spotting was also rated following storage at 2 °C (36 °F) and 89% ± 5% relative humidiyt for 3 to 4 weeks in 1999 and 2000. `Yuki', `Manoko', and `Summer Top' had lowest losses from bacterial soft rot while `Akala', `Ohken 75', `Spring Flavor', and `Yuki' had low levels of petiole spotting. Cold storage increased the incidence of the spotting disorder for most cultivars.
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 | 0.000 | 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".