MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028965765 · doi:10.1094/pd-90-1102

The Occurrence of PVY<sup>O</sup>, PVY<sup>N</sup>, and PVY<sup>N:O</sup> Strains of <i>Potato virus Y</i> in Certified Potato Seed Lot Trials in Washington and Oregon

2006· article· en· W2028965765 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. M. Crosslin, Philip B. Hamm, D. C. Hane, John R. Jaeger, Charles R. Brown, P. J. Shiel, P. H. Berger, R. E. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOregon Potato CommissionWashington State University
KeywordsPotato virus YBiologyPotyvirusIncidence (geometry)CultivarVirologyVeterinary medicinePotyviridaeVirusHorticulturePlant virusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Totals of 960 and 286 certified potato seed lots from locations across North America were planted in trials in Washington and Oregon, respectively, in 2001 to 2003 and tested for strains of Potato virus Y (PVY). The incidence of PVY O -infected lots averaged 16.4 and 25.9% in the Washington and Oregon trials, respectively. There was a general trend of increasing incidence of the PVY O , PVY N:O , and PVY N strains during this period, as evidenced by more infected cultivars, sites of seed origin, and number of seed growers providing infected seed lots. In particular, there was a dramatic increase in seed lots with the PVY N:O strain from 2002 to 2003. PVY N:O , in contrast to PVY O , which only causes yield reduction, also causes internal and external damage to tubers, making them unmarketable. In 2003, PVY N:O occurred in seed lots originating in eight states and three Canadian provinces. The increased incidence of PVY N:O was likely due to the difficulty in differentiating this strain from PVY O . The prevalence of PVY in potato seed lots documented herein poses a threat to potato production in the United States and suggests that current measures to reduce the incidence of this virus are inadequate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207