MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967099216 · doi:10.1139/x04-167

Distribution and frequency of <i>Cronartium flaccidum</i> on <i>Melampyrum </i>spp. in Finland

2005· article· en· W1967099216 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juha Kaitera, Heikki Nuorteva, Jarkko Hantula

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pineBiologyBotanyPinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distribution and frequency of Cronartium flaccidum telia were investigated on Melampyrum spp. growing wild in 355 Scots pine stands in Finland. Telia were found for the first time on M. arvense in Finland and for the first time on M. pratense and M. nemorosum in natural forests anywhere. Cronartium flaccidum telia were found in 22% of all stands with M. sylvaticum, 3% of stands with M. pratense, 12% of stands with M. nemorosum, 100% of stands with M. arvense, and 0% of stands with M. cristatum. Melampyrum spp. with telia were mostly found in northern Finland. The proportions of stands with telia and of plants with telia per stand, the frequency of telia-bearing leaves per plant, and the average number of telia per leaf were greater for M. sylvaticum than for most of the other Melampyrum species. In severely affected pine stands, telia were frequent on M. sylvaticum, but scarce or lacking on M. pratense. On sites with M. sylvaticum, the respective proportion of telia-bearing plants was significantly higher in young development classes and severely diseased stands than in older development classes and slightly damaged stands. The results suggest that the main host of C. flaccidum is M. sylvaticum in northern Finland.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207