MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118602594 · doi:10.4141/cjps08083

The prevalence of <i>Fusarium</i> spp. colonizing seed corn stalks in southwestern Ontario, Canada

2009· article· en· W2118602594 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lily Tamburic-Ilincic, A. W. Schaafsma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsGibberella zeaeFusariumGibberellaBiologyStalkZea maysAgronomyHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gibberella zeae, Fusarium verticillioides and F. subglutinans are the most important causes of Fusarium stalk rot in corn (Zea mays L.). Gibberella zeae also causes fusarium head blight in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and gibberella ear rot in corn. The objectives of this study were to investigate prevalence of Fusarium species in the stalks of seed corn over time and to investigate the influence of sampling time and internode position on Fusarium spp. and G. zeae, particularly. Fusarium subglutinans and G. zeae were the most frequently recovered species from asymptomatic host tissue and from pink discoloration on stalks, respectively. More G. zeae was isolated from the basal internode of stalks than from the higher ones closer to harvest time. Other species isolated from seed corn stalks over time included F. verticillioides, F. oxysporum, F. sporotrichioides and F. equiseti. A similar spectrum of Fusarium species was identified from corn ears and from winter wheat across southwestern Ontario. Key words: Zea mays L., Fusarium spp.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food→French-language works237,207→