MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975032347 · doi:10.1139/b03-073

A comparative morphological study of South African avocado and mango isolates of<i>Colletotrichum gloeosporioides</i>

2003· article· en· W1975032347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gina M. Sanders, Lisé Korsten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsColletotrichum gloeosporioidesConidiumBiologyAppressoriumColletotrichumBotanyVirulenceInoculationHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South African isolates of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. from avocado and mango are phenotypically as variable as isolates from other countries over the world. Colony colours ranging from pale salmon pink to dark grey green occurred. Isolates from mango were generally less variable than those from avocados. Most isolates produced appressoria terminally on germ tubes and few differences were observed between appressoria of different isolates, their mean length being 14.6 µm. Four different types of conidial shapes were found, and both avocado and mango isolates produced mainly cylindrical conidia with a tapered base and obtuse apex. Conidial length varied considerably, but width remained relatively constant. No correlation was evident between the length/width ratio of conidia and the virulence of isolates when inoculated into avocado and mango.Key words: Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, conidia, morphology, avocado, mango.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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