MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998062985 · doi:10.1094/php-2010-0102-01-rs

Effect of Diseases on Soybean Yield in the Top Eight Producing Countries in 2006

2010· article· en· W1998062985 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allen Wrather, Grover Shannon, Ricardo Balardin, L. H. Carregal, R. Escobar, Girish Kumar Gupta, Zhanhong Ma, W. Morel, D. Ploper, Albert Tenuta

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Health Progress · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
FundersUnited Soybean Board
KeywordsPhakopsora pachyrhiziSoybean rustBiologyYield (engineering)CultivarAgronomyCropSoybean cyst nematodeFungicide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this project was to compile estimates of yield loss in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] to diseases in the top eight soybean-producing countries in 2006. The purpose was to provide information needed by local and world agencies to allocate funds for research and to help scientists focus and coordinate research efforts. Methods used by plant pathologists to estimate yield loss to diseases in these countries included systematic field surveys, cultivar trials, diagnostic clinic records, personal observations, and questionnaires sent to crop consultants and extension staff. The 2006 harvest of soybeans in the top eight soybean-producing countries was reduced an estimated 59.9 million metric tonnes (t) by diseases according to results of the current study. Soybean rust, caused by Phakopsora pachyrhizi, reduced yield in all these countries except Canada in 2006, and the total was more than any other. Next in decreasing order of total yield loss were soybean cyst nematode, brown spot, seedling diseases, anthracnose, and charcoal rot. Accepted for publication 27 October 2009. Published 25 January 2010.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations203
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Health ProgressSame topicYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesFrench-language works237,207