MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current and future molecular approaches to investigate the white pine blister rust pathosystem

2010· article· en· W2106046603 on OpenAlexaff
Bryce A. Richardson, A. K. M. Ekramoddoulah, Jun‐Jun Liu, Mee‐Sook Kim, Ned B. Klopfenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsPathosystemBiologyRust (programming language)Population geneticsConservation geneticsEvolutionary biologyGeneticsPopulationMicrosatellitePathogenGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Molecular genetics is proving to be especially useful for addressing a wide variety of research and management questions on the white pine blister rust pathosystem. White pine blister rust, caused by Cronartium ribicola , is an ideal model for studying biogeography, genetics, and evolution because: (1) it involves an introduced pathogen; (2) it includes multiple primary and alternate hosts occurring in large, relatively undisturbed ecosystems; (3) some hosts exhibit endemic resistance; and (4) the disease interaction is long enduring. Molecular techniques are used to investigate population genetics, phylogenetics, hybrids, and proteomics in white pine ( Pinus , subgenus Strobus ) and blister rust ( Cronartium ) and the genetics of resistance and virulence in the blister rust pathosystem. These techniques include genetic markers, mapping, microarrays, sequencing, association genetics, genomics, and genecology. Molecular genetics contributes to gene conservation, breeding for resistance, and ecosystem management.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesFrench-language works237,207