MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012858433 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n4p30

Identification and Screening of Citrus Vein Phloem Degeneration (CVPD) on Brastagi Citrus Variety Brastepu (Citrus nobilis Brastepu) in North Sumatra Indonesia

2015· article· en· W2012858433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isnaini Nurwahyuni, Justin A. Napitupulu, Rosmayati Rosmayati, Fauziyah Harahap

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhloemBiologyRutaceaeHorticultureCitrus × sinensisExplant cultureCitrus fruitBotanyRough lemonRootstockOrange (colour)In vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identification and screening of Citrus Vein Phloem Degeneration (CVPD) on Brastagi citrus variety Brastepu (Citrus nobilis Brastepu) in North Sumatra Indonesia is explained. The aim of the study is to explore the technique to obtain healthy Brastepu citrus to be used as a source of explants for in vitro propagation as a step in the preservation of threatened local citrus. The studies were conducted through collection of survived Brastepu citrus followed by screening the CVPD in the plants. Various procedures in the field and in the laboratory have been conducted to screen infected CVPD in Brastepu citrus. Visual examination from leaf, fruit, and seed appearance becomes preliminary information for CVPD infection in the citrus plant. Iodine test was used to support results obtained by visual observation. Histochemical test and the PCR analysis have confirmed that 12 samples of Brastepu citrus are free from CVPD and eight citrus are infected by CVPD. Adequate informations have been obtained to confirm healthy citrus tree which are then to be used as sources of explants for in vitro propagation in the preservation of Citrus nobilis Brastepu.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207