MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030133943 · doi:10.1080/03235408.2013.792538

Morphological and pathogenic variability in <i>Macrophomina phaseolina</i> isolates of pigeonpea ( <i>Cajanus cajan</i> L.) and their relatedness using principle component analysis

2013· article· en· W2030133943 on OpenAlexaff
Surinder Kaur, Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, V.B. Chauhan

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrophomina phaseolinaCajanusBiologyBotanyComponent (thermodynamics)HorticultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractSixty-one isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina were characterised on the basis of different morphological characters to study the variability in the population. PCA analysis extracted three main components, microsclerotia, texture and colour, from the population that described the variability in the population most appropriately. Colour of the isolates and the presence of the microsclerotia have a significant effect on the area under disease progress curve. Isolates with the production of microsclerotia (M+) were more aggressive as compared to isolates with no production of microsclerotia (M−). The study has brought out pathogenic variation in M. phaseolina, thus better understanding of host pathogen relationship to identify physiologic races in the breeding programme.Keywords: Macrophomina phaseolinamicrosclerotiamorphological variabilitypathogenic variabilitypigeonpeaprinciple component analysis AcknowledgementsThe authors acknowledge NAARM, Hyderabad, India for providing Senior Research Fellowship for doctorate studies Surinder Kaur. The views or opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Phytopathology and Plant ProtectionSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207