MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064011765 · doi:10.3390/md8040968

Chitosan in Plant Protection

2010· review· en· W2064011765 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Drugs · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChitinChitosanCallosePlant defense against herbivoryBiologyPathogenPlant growthMode of actionBiotechnologyMicrobiologyBiochemistryBotanyCell wall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chitin and chitosan are naturally-occurring compounds that have potential in agriculture with regard to controlling plant diseases. These molecules were shown to display toxicity and inhibit fungal growth and development. They were reported to be active against viruses, bacteria and other pests. Fragments from chitin and chitosan are known to have eliciting activities leading to a variety of defense responses in host plants in response to microbial infections, including the accumulation of phytoalexins, pathogen-related (PR) proteins and proteinase inhibitors, lignin synthesis, and callose formation. Based on these and other proprieties that help strengthen host plant defenses, interest has been growing in using them in agricultural systems to reduce the negative impact of diseases on yield and quality of crops. This review recapitulates the properties and uses of chitin, chitosan, and their derivatives, and will focus on their applications and mechanisms of action during plant-pathogen interactions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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