MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109644675 · doi:10.4141/p02-048

Reactions of field pea cultivars to four races of <i>Fusarium oxysporum</i> f. sp. <i>pisi</i>

2003· article· en· W2109644675 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shizhou Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusarium wiltCultivarField peaBiologyShootFusarium oxysporumSativumHorticultureFusariumAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactions of the 117 field pea cultivars available in Canada were evaluated to the four common races (1, 2, 5, and 6) of Fusarium oxysporum Schl. f. sp. pisi (van Hall) Sny. and Hans, the causal agent of fusarium wilt, in growth chambers. Based on the visual assessment of foliar wilt symptoms, 49 cultivars were resistant to at least one of the four races, and the remaining 68 cultivars were susceptible to all four races. Of these resistant cultivars, Ascona and 44 other cultivars were resistant to race 1; Impala to race 2; Aladin to races 1 and 2; and Radley and Princess to races 2, 5, and 6. In an effort to standardize the methodology for screening field pea for resistance to the pathogen, other quantitative parameters including shoot length, vascular discoloration, and shoot and root dry weights were evaluated on selected cultivars. Correlation analysis revealed that foliar wilt symptoms and the reduction in shoot length were highly correlated (r = -0.90, P &lt; 0.01). The result suggests that the reduction in shoot length could be used to supplement the visual severity rating for fusarium wilt in field pea. Key words: Field pea, Pisum sativum, fusarium wilt, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. pisi, resistance

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207