MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971412410 · doi:10.4141/p05-213

Influence of agronomic traits on the expression of tissuespecific resistance to mycosphaerella blight in field pea

2007· article· en· W1971412410 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
R. L. Conner, Sheau‐Fang Hwang, S. M. Woods, K. F. Chang, Deng‐Jin Bing, H. Su, D.W. McAndrew, L. M. Yager

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsMycosphaerellaField peaSativumBiologyBlightCultivarPisumAgronomyAscochytaPlant disease resistanceCropMycosphaerella graminicolaHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycosphaerella blight, caused by Mycosphaerella pinodes, is the most destructive disease of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) in western Canada. A 3-yr field study conducted at two field locations examined the effect of differences in lodging, growth stage and maturity on disease development among field pea cultivars that possess different forms of partial resistance. Significant differences in disease development, measured as area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), and as disease severity on the leaves, stems and pods were observed among the field pea cultivars. These measurements of disease development were only influenced by differences in crop maturity in 2005. Only cultivars that were either intermediate or late maturing had low disease severity ratings or AUDPC values. Differences in the degree of lodging had a small inconsistent effect on the mycosphaerella blight ratings. These results suggest that differences in maturity should be considered in order to avoid inadvertent selection for late maturity while evaluating field pea lines or cultivars for mycosphaerella blight resistance. Key words: Mycosphaerella pinodes, field pea, Pisum sativum, maturity, lodging.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207