MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076059404 · doi:10.1080/07060660009501157

Stem rusts on wheat, barley, and oat in Canada in 1998

2000· article· en· W2076059404 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brent McCallum, D. E. Harder, K.M. Dunsmore

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Pathology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem rustAgronomyBiologyCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severities of the stem rusts of wheat and barley [Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici] and oat [P. graminis f. sp. avenae] were light in Canada in 1998. Sixteen different pathotypes were identified from 151 P. g. tritici isolates, and 4 pathotypes were identified from 105 P. g. avenae isolates. The majority of P. g. tritici isolates from wheat were collected in Alberta and British Columbia, where the pathotype QFCSR made up 78% of the isolates. The majority of P. g. tritici isolates from barley were collected in Manitoba, where RCRSK made up 63% of the isolates. All P. g. tritici isolates were virulent to Sr5, Sr21, Sr9g, and Sr9d and avirulent to Sr22, Sr24, Sr25, Sr26, Sr27, Sr29, Sr30. Sr31, Sr32, Sr33, Sr37, and Sr40, a series of resistant lines, and commonly grown bread and durum wheat varieties. Most P. g. avenae isolates from both cultivated and wild oat were NA29. A pathotype new to western Canada, NA67, was identified that has combined virulence to Pgl3, Pg9, and Pg2. It constituted 15% of isolates from wild oat and 27% of isolates from cultivated oat and is virulent to the commonly grown oat cultivars in western Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant PathologySame topicYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesFrench-language works237,207