MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of <i>Oculimacula yallundae</i> and <i>O. acuformis</i> (eyespot) lesions on stems of winter wheat in relation to thermal time in the UK

2008· article· en· W2090473821 on OpenAlexaff
Clive H. Bock, A. Wan, Bruce D.L. Fitt

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilRoyal Society
KeywordsEyespotInoculationBiologySowingHorticultureIncidence (geometry)PoaceaeWinter wheatBotanyAgronomyAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between development of eyespot, caused by Oculimacula yallundae (OY) or O. acuformis (OA) on stems of winter wheat (cv. Avalon), and thermal time (°C days after sowing) were investigated in field experiments in 1985/86, 1986/87 and 1987/88 (two experiments). In all experiments, the incidence and severity of stem eyespot (uninoculated plots, OY‐ and OA‐inoculated plots) were linearly related to accumulated thermal time after sowing. There were ca. 600–800°C days from the time of the first sample when eyespot lesions were recorded on stems to the time when maximum eyespot incidence or severity was recorded. Relationships between stem eyespot incidence or severity and thermal time differed between seasons, with more severe eyespot in 1986/87 and 1987/88 than 1985/86. Both the severity and volume of stem lesions were initially greater in OY‐inoculated plots than OA‐inoculated plots in spring but differences were less by harvest in all seasons. The percentage of plants with stems colonized by OY or OA over all plots (including uninoculated) showed a consistent pattern in 1986/87 and 1987/88 (two experiments), with the percentage colonized by OY greater initially and the percentage colonized by OA gradually increasing with time towards harvest.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant PathologySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207