MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An <i>in vitro</i> method for screening <i>Colletotrichum gloeosporioides</i> as a biological control agent for western hemlock dwarf mistletoe

2009· article· en· W2090085794 on OpenAlexaff
S. E. Askew, Simon F. Shamoun, Bart Kamp

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInoculationShootColletotrichum gloeosporioidesVirulenceBiological pest controlBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary An in vitro system using detached western hemlock branches infected with dwarf mistletoe was developed to screen the virulence of five isolates of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, a hyperparasite of dwarf mistletoe shoots and berries. Detached branches infected with dwarf mistletoe were placed in nutrient‐saturated rock‐wool blocks and mistletoe shoots were inoculated with a conidial suspension of C. gloeosporioides. One month after inoculation, lesions on mistletoe stems and berries were well developed. Infection levels for individual isolates varied from 40% to 60% of shoots and 60% to 80% of berries. Significant differences were found between the isolates and control (p = 0.02 and 0.001, respectively) while no differences were noted between the isolates for both the shoots and berries. Parallel inoculation of mistletoe shoots detached from hemlock branches on moist filter paper and in rock‐wool blocks failed because these shoots deteriorated rapidly, fragmenting into segments within a week. This in vitro test may provide an alternative method for rapid screening of potentially virulent C. gloeosporioides isolates.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207