Pathotype Classification of <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> and its Occurrence in <i>Brassica napus</i> in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A field survey for clubroot of crucifers, caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae, was conducted in the regions surrounding Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in 2005. The presence of clubroot was confirmed in 41 of the 112 canola (Brassica napus) fields surveyed. These P. brassicae‐ infested fields were located in Sturgeon, Strathcona, Leduc and Wetaskiwin counties, as well as in a rural area of northeast Edmonton. Infected roots were also received from an infested field in Flagstaff County, southeast of Edmonton. Although there was a significant negative correlation between index of disease and soil pH, the occurrence of clubroot was not restricted to fields with acidic soils. Populations of the pathogen were selected from 10 fields and used in pathotype classification on the differential hosts of Williams, Somé et al. and the European Clubroot Differential (ECD) set. Kruskal–Wallis analysis indicated no significant differences in the virulence of the 10 populations tested, suggesting that they are relatively homogenous. If a disease index of 50% was regarded as the cut‐off between a resistant and a susceptible reaction, then all P. brassicae populations tested were classified as ECD ‐/15/12 on the hosts of the ECD set, or as pathotypes 3 or P2 on the differentials of Williams or Somé et al. respectively. However, it may be difficult to detect rare or infrequent pathotypes when field populations of the pathogen are used for characterization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".