MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121541130 · doi:10.7202/009833ar

Destruction de Rhizopus stolonifer et Botrytis cinerea par des traitements ozone/ions

2005· article· fr· W2121541130 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Eugène Émile Nicoué, Jean-Pierre Émond, Jean-Christophe Vuillemard, Maria Cecilia do Nascimento Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotrytis cinereaBiologyOzoneChemistryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’activité fongicide des traitements ozone/ionisation a été étudiée. Rhizopus stolonifer et Botrytis cinerea , deux moisissures pathogènes communes de l’entreposage des fraises, ont été inoculées sur gélose et exposées à 10 6 ions/cm 3 d’air et à des concentrations d’ozone de 0,05; 0,1; 0,5 et 1 ppm. En guise d’application, des fraises ont été inoculées par lésion avec chaque souche de moisissure et traitées aux mêmes concentrations d’ozone pour 12, 24, 48, 72 heures et comparées à un témoin inoculé non traité. Les résultats obtenus ont démontré un effet fongicide significatif et/ou fongistatique des traitements combinés ozone/ionisation sur les moisissures étudiées. Les expériences sur gélose ont montré que les teneurs en ozone de 0,05 et 0,1 ppm ont permis, après 36 heures de traitement, de réduire respectivement de 57 et 76 % les populations de R. stolonifer , et de 68 et 78 % les populations de B. cinerea . Pour les concentrations d’ozone de 0,5 et 1 ppm, une réduction de 99 % pour R. stolonifer et de 98 % pour B. cinerea a été observée. Sur les fraises exposées à 1 ppm d’ozone, après 72 heures de traitement, 91,1 et 98,8 % de réduction des populations de R. stolonifer et B. cinerea ont été observées respectivement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207