HT-2 and T-2 toxins in barley inoculated with <i>Fusarium sporotrichioides</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess field production of the Fusarium trichothecenes HT-2 toxin, T-2 toxin, and neosolaniol, inoculation trials with four barley cultivars and local isolates of Fusarium sporotrichioides were performed over 2 yr at an experimental farm in southern Manitoba. In the 1998 study, HT-2 toxin was detected in 14 of 16 barley rows at levels between 0.14 and 0.52 µg g-1, with positive samples averaging 0.26 µg g-1. T-2 toxin was not detected. Fusarium sporotrichioides infection ranged between 15 and 49% with an average value of 29%. In the 1999 study, HT-2 toxin was detected in 16 of 16 barley rows at levels between 0.67 and 3.72 µg g-1, averaging 1.92 µg g-1, and T-2 toxin in 15 of 16 rows between 0.35 and 1.27 µg g-1, with positive samples averaging 0.70 µg g-1. Fusarium sporotrichioides infection ranged between 52 and 93% with an average value of 7 5%. No neosolaniol was detected in any of the samples. The data suggest that in years of moderate F. sporotrichioides infection, HT-2 toxin might to be found in Manitoba barley, and in summers of higher rainfall and fungal infection, T-2 toxin might also be present. Key words: HT-2 toxin, T-2 toxin, Canada, barley, Fusarium sporotrichioides
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".