MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014801627 · doi:10.4141/p99-169

Effects of root inoculation and fungicide soil drenches on sclerotinia blight of coneflower

2000· article· en· W2014801627 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Haipeng Wang, K. F. Chang, Sheau‐Fang Hwang, G. D. Turnbull, R. J. Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerotinia sclerotiorumBenomylBiologyFungicideIprodioneSclerotiniaAgronomyHorticultureInoculationSeedlingBlight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greenhouse studies showed that root inoculation had significant effects on sclerotinia blight (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) of coneflower (Echinacea sp.). Seedling wilt and root rot symptoms caused by S. sclerotiorum were most severe when inoculum was placed in direct contact with seedling roots, and diminished as the distance of the inoculum from the roots increased. When colonized agar disks, colonized oat grains and sclerotia as inoculum sources were evaluated on E. angustifolia, grain inoculum was the most virulent and sclerotia the least. An in vitro bioassay was conducted, and a logistic dose-response model was developed for the fungicides benomyl, vinclozolin, iprodione and dicloran. The first three fungicides were further evaluated in greenhouse experiments. Benomyl was the most effective in controlling S. sclerotiorum in both bioassay and greenhouse evaluations. The same three fungicides were evaluated in two field experiments in Alberta, where all were effective in reducing disease incidence. Key words: Echinacea sp., Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, dose-response model

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207