MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139672449 · doi:10.4141/p03-086

The reactions of Canadian spring wheat genotypes to inoculation with <i>Claviceps purpurea</i>, the causal agent of ergot

2004· article· en· W2139672449 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J. G. Menzies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoneydewClaviceps purpureaBiologyCultivarInoculationAgronomyHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ergot, caused by Claviceps purpurea, can be a detrimental pathogen of wheat because the sclerotia of this fungus are toxic to animals and humans. The purpose of this work was to determine if currently registered Canadian wheat cultivars and experimental wheat lines differ in their reactions to C. purpurea and to determine if different classes of wheat [Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS), Canadian Prairie Spring (CPS), Canadian Western Extra Strong (CWES), Canadian Western Soft White Spring (CWSWS), and Canadian Western Amber Durum (CWAD)] differ in their levels of resistance. Fifty-four wheat genotypes from different western Canadian classes of wheat were inoculated with a mixture of six isolates of C. purpurea and assessed for the number of sclerotia produced per spike and rated for sclerotial size produced and the amount of honeydew produced. In general, CWAD wheats produced significantly fewer sclerotia per spike and the CWSWS wheats had significantly smaller sclerotia. None of the classes differed in honeydew production. One CWAD genotype, 9260B-173A, had the fewest sclerotia, and the lowest ratings for sclerotial size, and amount of honeydew produced compared to the other wheat genotypes tested. Key words: Hexaploid wheat, durum wheat, Triticum turgidum var. durum, T. aestivum, ergot, Claviceps purpurea, resistance, sclerotia size, honeydew

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations26
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207