MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017239462 · doi:10.4141/p99-085

Effect of mancozeb on the control of mycosphaerella blight of field pea

2000· article· en· W2017239462 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Thomas D. Warkentin, Allen Xue, D.W. McAndrew

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMancozebMycosphaerellaChlorothalonilFungicideField peaBlightBiologyCultivarSativumAgronomyHorticultureAscochytaSeptoriaLeaf spot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycosphaerella blight (MB) [Mycosphaerella pinodes (Berk. & Blox.)Vestergr.] causes substantial yield loss to field pea in western Canada in most seasons and is a disease for which genetic resistance is lacking. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of foliar application of mancozeb for the control of MB of field pea. Field trials of split-plot design were conducted at two sites per year from 1996 to 1998 in southern Manitoba, with cultivars as main-plots and fungicide treatments as sub-plots. In most site-years, a single application of mancozeb at the early flowering stage was effective in reducing MB severity and in increasing yield. Mancozeb had similar efficacy to chlorothalonil, the only currently registered fungicide for control of MB in field pea. The beneficial effect of both fungicides was greater for the highly MB susceptible cultivars AC Tamor and Carrera than the moderately MB susceptible cultivar Radley. Key words: Pisum sativum, field pea, mycosphaerella blight, mancozeb, chlorothalonil

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207