MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124192978 · doi:10.7202/706038ar

Effect of plant age, leaf age and leaf position on infection of carrot leaves by Cercospora carotae

2005· article· en· W2124192978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arnout van Delden, Odile Carisse

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCercosporaDaucus carotaIncubation periodIncubationHorticultureInoculationLeaf spotBlightBoraginaceaeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A greenhouse study was conducted to determine the effects of plant age, leaf age and leaf position on infection of carrot ( Daucus carota var. sativa ) by Cercospora carotae. Infection was quantified as the number of lesions cm -2 of leaf surface and the length of incubation period. The relative number of lesions decreased linearly with increasing plant age from 39- to 60-d-old plants, and remained low from 60- to 71-d-old plants. The incubation period increased from 9.0 to 16.6 d, with increasing plant age. Relative number of lesions decreased with increasing leaf age from 1 to 36 d, but the variation among leaves was high. The incubation period increased from 9.0 to 18.3 d with increasing leaf age, but lesions on a few young leaves appeared relatively late. Generally, differences in relative number of lesions for leaves on different positions for 10- and 13-wk-old plants were not significant. Infection on all leaves except the two youngest was representative of infection on whole plant. Effect of leaf position on incubation period was different for the 10- and 13-wk-old plants and for the two trials. Plants younger than 60 d old, in the seven-to eight-leaf stages should be used for experiments on the initial development of Cercospora blight of carrots.

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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207