MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966507806 · doi:10.7202/706084ar

Effectiveness of fungicidal seed treatments applied to smooth or shrivelled soybean seeds contaminated by Diaporthe phaseolorum

2005· article· en· W1966507806 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
R. Hall, Allen Xue

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of GuelphUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThiramFungicideCaptanSeed treatmentBenomylBiologySeedlingAgronomyHorticultureGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of 11 fungicides on six lots of soybean ( Glycine max ) seed produced in Ontario in 1986-1987 and contaminated with Diaporthe phaseolorum var. caulivora (7-76%) and D. phaseolorum var. sojae (5-19%) was examined. Phomopsis longicolla also contaminated three of these seed lots at low rates (1-2%). The fungicide Vitaflo-280®, a mix of carbathiin and thiram, increased soybean seedling emergence, plant stand at harvest and seed yield, and decreased the severity of stem infection when applied to three lots of discolored and shrivelled seed, but was ineffective when applied to three lots of bright and smooth seed. The effectiveness of this product was not related to the incidence of contaminated seed. A further 10 fungicidal products were similarly effective and ineffective when applied to shrivelled and smooth seed lots, respectively. The most effective active ingredients were thiram, carbathiin, benomyl and captan, and the most effective commercial products available in Ontario were Vitaflo-280®, Vitavax P®, Thiram 320F®, and Anchor®. The maximum increase in seed yield was 60.5%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207