MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135309701 · doi:10.1139/x05-113

Germination, penetration, and infection by <i>Arceuthobium americanum</i> on <i>Pinus banksiana</i>

2005· article· en· W2135309701 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J.P. Brandt, Y. Hiratsuka, D. J. Pluth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationBiologyPinus <genus>BotanyHorticultureAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on the establishment of Arceuthobium americanum Nutt. ex Engelm. on its host, jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), is required to improve knowledge of this critical development stage and improve pest management. Laboratory and field observations on four populations of A. americanum seeds from Alberta collected in 2000 and 2001 and histological observations on one population were used to determine the timing and histopathology of parasite establishment on jack pine. Seed germination remained near zero until 110 d after placing seeds in storage; germination peaked after 230 d in 2001 and between 230 and 320 d in 2002. Interannual variation in germination timing at study sites was high. Interannual variation in percentage of germination was low, as was variation in percentage of germination from different seed sources. Germinated seeds of each seed source were significantly larger (48%) than seeds that did not germinate. Penetration at the base of spur shoots began during June–August and usually continued until June–July of the next year. The odds of infection when the germinant survived until the second growing season were 26–55 times greater than the odds of infection when the germinant withered in the first growing season. Symptoms of infection usually occurred 13–15 months after germination and were consistent for all seed sources and sites.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207