MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173641608 · doi:10.1094/pdis-07-14-0694-re

Evaluation of Sampling and Testing Efficiencies of <i>Plum pox virus</i> Eradication Programs in Pennsylvania and Ontario

2015· article· en· W2173641608 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Andrew V. Gougherty, K. T. Pazdernik, Mark S. Kaiser, Forrest W. Nutter

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Food Inspection AgencyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsOrchardSampling (signal processing)BiologyPox virusPrunusStratified samplingVeterinary medicineMathematicsStatisticsHorticultureVirologyMedicineComputer scienceVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plum pox virus (PPV) was first detected in the United States in Pennsylvania in 1999 and in Ontario, Canada in 2000. Following a 10-year survey and eradication program, PPV was officially declared eradicated in Pennsylvania in 2009. Although incidence of PPV was greatly reduced from 2000 to 2008, PPV remains present in Ontario. The objective of this study was to compare how the Pennsylvania and Ontario PPV eradication programs affected the probability of detecting PPV at the leaf, scaffold, tree, and Prunus orchard block scales. A simulation model was developed to evaluate the sampling and testing efficiency of the two programs. At the tree scale, the Pennsylvania sampling and detection protocols had a detection efficiency of 71.8% compared with 40.5% for the Ontario program. Several components in the Pennsylvania and Ontario PPV eradication programs affected PPV detection efficiency. A stratified (by tree scaffold) random sampling design did not improve PPV detection efficiency in either program, compared with a simple random sampling design to select leaves for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing. Detection efficiency for both programs increased with sample size but gains in detection efficiency diminished as sample size increased. There was good agreement (between the commercial ELISA kit used in Pennsylvania and the kit used in Ontario) at the leaf and scaffold scales but not the tree scale. Based on simulation modeling, the Pennsylvania PPV eradication program required that >2 PPV-positive trees must be present within a Prunus block to achieve a 95% probability of correctly detecting PPV at the block scale, whereas the Ontario program required >5 PPV-positive trees within a block to achieve 95% probability of detection. The results from this study have important implications with regard to the efficiency of the two eradication programs to detect PPV-positive trees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207