MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2032922663 · doi:10.1139/x2012-059

Response of different white fir geographic provenances to <i>Trichosporium symbioticum</i> inoculation in California

2012· article· en· W2032922663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William J. Otrosina, Stanley J. Zarnoch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsInoculationBiologyProvenanceBotanyHorticulturePersistence (discontinuity)Spring (device)FungusWhite (mutation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We inoculated the fir engraver ( Scolytus ventralis LeConte) associated fungus Trichosporium symbioticum Wright onto 56 white fir ( Abies concolor (Gordon & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.) trees planted in a common garden study near Camino, California, that represented five geographic provenances of this species. The objective was to determine if there is a differential lesion length response of white fir provenances with respect to provenance. We found a significant (P < 0.019) difference between the provenances from Arizona and those of eastern Nevada origins 28 days after inoculation. There was a significant interaction between the two T. symbioticum isolates and season of inoculation. Fall inoculations tended to have smaller lesions than those in the spring but this varied by isolate in that the one from eastern Nevada tended to produce longer lesions in the spring (P = 0.0001) whereas the isolate from the Camino plantation did not differ between spring and fall (P = 1.000). There is evidence for genetic variability relative to white fir provenance lesion length in response to T. symbioticum inoculation, and in future studies, isolate variability should also be taken into account.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases→French-language works237,207→