Comparison of decision methods to initiate fungicide applications against cercospora blight of carrot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1991 and 1992, two thresholds of a forecasting model were compared with two other decision methods for effectiveness in timing the first fungicide application against Cercospora blight of carrot induced by Cercospora carotae . The first fungicide application was made when : 1) the plants reached 15 cm in height (conventional method); 2) the intermediate (middle) leaves of 50% of the plants were diseased (50% disease incidence threshold method); 3) the cumulative infection equivalence (CE) was 14 (forecasting model CE 14); and 4) the CE was 18 (forecasting model CE 18). In all four treatments, subsequent applications of fungicide were made at 10-d intervals when there was no rain, and at 7-d intervals when there was rain. The CE was calculated based on duration of leaf wetness and temperature during the wet period, corrected for high humidity and interrupted wet periods, and was cumulative starting at crop emergence. For thresholds of CE 14 and CE 18, no yield losses were observed and the total number of fungicide applications needed was lower compared to conventional and 50% disease incidence threshold methods. In a separate study, the CE thresholds were related to the percentage of commercial fields that reached disease incidence thresholds of 50, 80 and 100% to establish low risk (CE 11-15) and high risk (CE 16-20) thresholds. The forecasting of low and high risk CE thresholds were too late for 3 and 19% of the commercial fields because those fields had more than 50 and 80% of the plants diseased, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".