MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982646764 · doi:10.1139/b00-108

Initial events in the colonisation of tomatoes by <i>Oidium lycopersici</i>, a distinct powdery mildew fungus of <i>Lycopersicon </i>species

2000· article· en· W1982646764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hannah Jones, John M. Whipps, Barry Thomas, Tim L.W. Carver, Sarah J. Gurr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPowdery Mildew Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsPowdery mildewAppressoriumBiologyConidiumBotanyLycopersicon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rDNA intergenic spacer sequence of Oidium lycopersici (ana.; Cooke & Massee 1888, emend. Noordeloos and Loerakker 1989, emend. Mieslerova and Lebeda 1999) was determined and compared with the sequences of other powdery mildews. This pathogen was shown to be distinct from other powdery mildew fungi found on tomato, but it exhibited a close similarity to Erysiphe aquilegiae var. ranunculi. The initial events involved in the germination of conidia and subsequent formation of the appressorium in the newly described powdery mildew of tomato, O. lycopersici, were studied by light and scanning electron microscopy. Scanning electron microscopy revealed the conidial coat to be smooth to slightly rugose and the appressoria to be multilobed and attached to the host by a mucilaginous pad of extracellular material.Key words: Oidium lycopersici, tomato powdery mildew, ITS, life cycle, light microscopy, electron microscopy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPowdery Mildew Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207