MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014424409 · doi:10.1094/pd-89-0521

Evaluation of <i>Avena</i> spp. Accessions for Resistance to Oat Stem Rust

2005· article· en· W2014424409 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Gold Steinberg, J. Mitchell Fetch, T. Fetch

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyStem rustAvenaPloidyPucciniaCultivarRust (programming language)Race (biology)BotanyResistance (ecology)AgronomyGeneGeneticsMildew

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oat stem rust, caused by Puccinia graminis f. sp. avenae, can cause significant yield losses in the eastern prairie region of western Canada. Currently, the predominant race of P. graminis f. sp. avenae in this region is NA67. Few genes confer resistance to NA67, and none are present in any oat cultivars registered for production in Canada. To detect lines exhibiting resistance to race NA67, we evaluated 9,978 accessions from 22 Avena spp. in field nurseries from 2001 to 2004. In all, 35 accessions were highly resistant and 12 were moderately resistant, comprised mostly of the species A. strigosa. Seventy-one accessions had an intermediate response, comprised mostly of A. abyssinica, A. barbata, A. sterilis, and A. vaviloviana. All other accessions (9,860 = 98.8%) were susceptible to race NA67. Some highly resistant accessions were found to have been incorrectly classified previously as hexaploid species A. sativa or A. sterilis, and were confirmed by chromosome counts to be diploid or tetraploid. The most promising source of novel stem rust resistance is from the diploid species A. strigosa. Transfer of resistance from diploid and tetraploid species to A. sativa is very difficult, but the lines identified in this study should prove useful as new sources of resistance to oat stem rust.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207