MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038938381 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2004.88.2.167

Reaction of a Diverse Collection of Barley Lines to Fusarium Head Blight

2004· article· en· W2038938381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brent McCallum, A. Tekauz, J. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusariumBiologyInoculationCultivarMycotoxinConidiumHorticultureAgronomyHordeum vulgarePoaceaeVeterinary medicineBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is currently the primary disease of concern in barley in Canada and sources of FHB resistance need to be identified. A diverse collection of 77 two-rowed and 81 six-rowed barley lines was screened for resistance to FHB in inoculated, irrigated nurseries from 1995 to 1998. Barley spikes were spray inoculated with conidia of Fusarium graminearum and visual symptoms of FHB were scored to determine an FHB index. Deoxynivalenol (DON) content was determined from harvested seed samples during 1997 and 1998. Although there was variation in the average FHB index and DON content among the different years of testing, the rankings of the lines generally were correlated among the years of testing and the two measures of FHB. Based on the FHB index from 1995 and 1996, a subset of 18 lines with low FHB and 12 lines with high FHB were compared with 20 FHB resistance sources and 7 Canadian lines or cultivars during 1997 and 1998 in both inoculated and noninoculated nurseries. Lines Nepolegajuscij, Krasnojarskij, Nordic, Murakaki-mochi, Golozernyj 1, Maris Mink, Symko, Ussurijskij 8, Suvenir, and Canadian cultivars AC Sterling and Morrison were similar to the best resistance sources (Zhedar1, Seijo II, and Chevron) and had consistently low DON content.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207