MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075533167 · doi:10.1080/07060660309507000

A rapid method for assessing the viability of fungal spores<sup>1</sup>

2002· article· en· W2075533167 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chang Y. Chen, G. Séguin-Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSporeGerminationBiologyLeptosphaeria maculansBotanySclerotinia sclerotiorumAlternariaBlacklegMicrobiologyBrassica

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ Bacterial Viability Kit (L-7007) manufactured by Molecular Probes, Inc. (Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.), which provides a two-colour fluorescence assay of bacterial viability, was useful for determining the viability of the hyaline spores of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. malvae, Leptosphaeria maculans, and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and the thick-walled spores of Alternaria brassicae. Under blue light, viable spores fluoresced green and dead spores fluoresced red. Cells of multicellular spores fluoresced green or red according to their viability. In tests performed with S. sclerotiorum, there was no significant difference between viability as determined with the kit and in vitro germinability. With C. gloeosporioides, the proportion of spores that germinated in vitro was lower than the proportion of viable spores, indicating that not all viable spores could germinate.Key words: blackleg, black spot, two-colour fluorescence assay.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207