MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126774580 · doi:10.7202/009834ar

Evaluation of faba beans for resistance to sclerotinia stem rot caused by Sclerotinia trifoliorum

2005· article· en· W2126774580 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Anastasios Lithourgidis, D. G. Roupakias, Christos A. Damalas

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerotiniaBiologyCultivarStem rotVicia fabaAgronomySclerotinia sclerotiorumHorticultureResistance (ecology)Botany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sclerotinia stem rot, a fungal disease caused by Sclerotinia trifoliorum , is often a serious problem in faba beans ( Vicia faba ). The levels of resistance to sclerotinia stem rot were evaluated in 23 faba bean cultivars originating from various European countries, 18 cultivars from ICARDA, five cultivars from Canada, 58 populations originating from various provinces of Greece, and five V. narbonensis populations. Evaluation was done under controlled conditions following artificial inoculation with carrot root pieces colonized by the fungus. Faba bean plants were scored for resistance on a 0 to 3 severity scale. There was significant variability for resistance to S. trifoliorum among faba bean cultivars and among populations. Seven cultivars and 15 Greek faba bean populations showed a satisfactory level of resistance (≤ 1.50), whereas 22 cultivars and 25 populations were susceptible (> 2.00). However, all V. narbonensis populations were resistant to S. trifoliorum (disease severity from 1.11 to 1.44) without significant variability within populations. Variability in the resistance of faba beans to S. trifoliorum would allow selection within appropriate genotypes for breeding in an effort to provide an effective alternative for sclerotinia stem rot management in this crop.

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 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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207