MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1873572006 · doi:10.4141/cjps2013-082

Evaluation of soybean cultivars for resistance to <i>Phomopsis longicolla</i> and <i>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</i> using excised leaves

2014· article· en· W1873572006 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
J. X. Zhang, A. G. Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerotinia sclerotiorumCultivarSclerotiniaBiologyPhomopsisInoculationHorticultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zhang, J. X. and Xue, A. G. 2014. Evaluation of soybean cultivars for resistance to Phomopsis longicolla and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum using excised leaves. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 955–961. The resistance of short-season soybean cultivars in Canada to Phomopsis longicolla and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum was measured on excised leaves based on the disease severity. Lesions caused by both fungi were first observed at inoculation sites within 24 to 36 h after excised leaflets were inoculated, varying among cultivars, and whole leaflets rot within 5–6 d for susceptible cultivars. Of the 74 cultivars evaluated, 20 were significantly more resistant to P. longicolla (LSD=1.1, P<0.05) and 19 to S. sclerotiorum (LSD=1.0, P<0.05), with mean severity ratings ranging from 1.3 to 2.3 caused by both fungi. Seven cultivars including Medallion, M. Arrow Brown, Alta, Portage, AC Albatros, Comet, and Pagoda, showed partial resistance to both of pathogens. These resistant cultivars identified in this study may be used as sources of resistance in future field breeding programs in Canada.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207