MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lesion formation and host response to infection by <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i> in the roots of western larch and Douglas‐fir

2001· article· en· W2052767177 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarchArmillariaBiologyDouglas firBotanyBark (sound)Host (biology)Host resistanceHost responseGirdlingLesionHorticultureEcologyPathologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of lesion formation and host response to natural infection by Armillaria ostoyae were studied in the roots of western larch ( Larix occidentalis ) and Douglas‐fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp. glauca ) trees in the three age classes, 6–8, 18–19 and 85–95 years. The characteristics of lesions on infected roots were recorded and bark samples were dissected from infection points and lesion margins in the field and stored in liquid nitrogen for macroscopic study in the laboratory. Infection in the roots of 6‐ to 8‐year‐old trees advanced freely, overcoming any host resistance, quickly girdling the root collar and killing the trees. In 18‐ and 19‐year‐old trees, however, 43% of infections on western larch and 27% of the infections on Douglas‐fir roots were confined to lesions bounded by necrophylactic periderms with multiple bands of phellem. Host response was similar in 85‐ to 95‐year‐old trees, but the percentage of confined lesions was higher than in younger trees. The results suggest that larch shows resistance to A. ostoyae at a younger age and with greater frequency than Douglas‐fir.

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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