MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976749126 · doi:10.1080/07060660409507125

Survival of <i>Ascochyta rabiei</i> in chickpea residue on the Canadian prairies

2004· article· en· W1976749126 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
B. D. Gossen, Perry R. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscochytaBlightAgronomyBiologyCropPopulationHorticultureMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ascochyta rabiei (teleomorph Didymella rabiei) overwinters in infested chickpea residue, which serves as a source of primary inoculum. Survival of the pathogen was assessed in studies where infested chickpea residue was maintained at the soil surface (0 cm) or buried at a 5- or 10-cm depth for up to 4 years, and in field trials at two locations where disease severity was assessed after 1, 2, and 3 years of nonhost crops. The burial studies indicate that the pathogen population increases in the year following an infected crop, and then declines over time, but that A. rabiei is still present at low levels in a field 4 years after the initial crop. However, the level of viable inoculum is low after 3 years. The field trials confirmed that the pathogen is still present following three intervening crops, but that inoculum pressure declines substantially after two intervening crops. We conclude that at least two nonhost crops are needed between successive crops of chickpea to reduce disease risk, where ascochyta blight was observed in the initial crop.

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 score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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