MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118538333 · doi:10.21273/jashs.135.5.438

Identification of Resistance to the Large Raspberry Aphid in Black Raspberry

2010· article· en· W2118538333 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Dossett, Chad E. Finn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceNorthwest Center for Small Fruits ResearchU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBlowing a raspberryRubusBiologyAphidBotanyResistance (ecology)HorticultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large raspberry aphid ( Amphorophora agathonica Hottes) is an important vector of viruses in Rubus L. across North America. Although breeding for aphid resistance has long been recognized as an important tool for protecting red raspberries ( Rubus idaeus L.) from viral infection, this is the first report of resistance to A. agathonica in black raspberry ( Rubus occidentalis L.). Seedlings from 132 wild populations of black raspberries, representing the species' native range, were screened for resistance to A. agathonica . Strong resistance was found in three of these populations, one from Ontario (ORUS 3778), one from Maine (ORUS 3817), and one from Michigan (ORUS 4109). Resistance to the large raspberry aphid in ORUS 3778 and ORUS 3817 is dominant and appears to be conferred by different genes. We propose that the genes for resistance in ORUS 3778 and ORUS 3817 be designated Ag 4 and Ag 5 , respectively. Resistance to A. agathonica in ORUS 4109 also appears to be controlled by a dominant allele at a single locus, but cannot be differentiated from Ag 4 at this time.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207