MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Population dynamics of greenbug biotypes “E” and “F” on Texas bluegrass

2010· article· en· W1982099207 on OpenAlex
J. J. Goldman, T. L. Springer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGrassland Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoa pratensisBiologyAgronomyPopulationPerennial plantForageHybridPoa annuaPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cool‐season perennial forage grasses are known to serve as alternate hosts of the greenbug, Schizaphis graminum (Rondani) in the southern Great Plains of the USA. Texas bluegrass ( Poa arachnifera Torr.) is a cool‐season perennial forage grass indigenous to this region and because of its persistence under grazing is being bred for improved forage production. An experiment was conducted to determine the population dynamics of greenbug biotype “E”, the predominant biotype found in this region and biotype “F” which is known to infest bluegrass species. Twenty‐five Texas bluegrass genotypes, three Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis L.) genotypes, a Canada bluegrass ( Poa compressa L.) genotype, two Texas × Kentucky bluegrass hybrids, and a Texas × Canada bluegrass hybrid were screened for their abilities to support greenbug population growth. Bluegrass species and genotypes varied significantly in their ability to support greenbug biotypes E and F. On the basis of higher aphid numbers, biotype E had a higher population growth rate as compared with biotype F on Texas bluegrass. Some Texas bluegrass genotypes were not included in both biotype trials due to lack of availability of uniform plant material for inoculation. Nine of 25 Texas bluegrass genotypes did not support biotype E greenbug population growth. Similarly, 13 of 22 Texas bluegrass genotypes did not support biotype F population growth. Both Canada and Kentucky bluegrass supported high populations of biotype F and interspecific hybrids varied in their host suitability to both biotypes.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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