The occurence of barley stripe mosaic virus in Kansas and its control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIiiW OP LITjiRATUIiE History Barley stripe mosaic has been known since about 1910, but it was thought to be a non-parasitic disease vuitil 1951 when it was shown by MoKinney (10, 11) to be caused by a seed-borne virus.Because of its resemblance to barley stripe, incited by Helmintho- sporiuiii graiaineum , the disease was called barley false stripe un- til the causal agent was determined, Ihe disease was first col- lected in 1913 at the (Wisconsin Agricultural Experiiaent station by A, G, Johnson, who preserved several specimens which are still in existence (I3).Drayton (3) reported that barley false stripe was collected by Conners in 192l| at the Brandon lixperiment Farm in Manitoba, Canada, He described the symptoms as consisting of stripes of ne- crotic tissue which tended to coalesce and form elongated V's, Kxperlraonts were conducted to determine if the disease might be caused by a species of Hetrosporiura which was associated with the diseased plants, but the results were negative, Christensen (l) described several non-parasitic leaf markings in barley in Minnesota.Although he did not mention barley false stripe, it seems likely that some of the conditions described by him were caused by this disease, A brief description of the dis- ease was given by Dickson (2), he believed that the condition re- sulted in little yield reduction, but he noted that it was of common occurrence in barley, Wadsworth (19) described a mosaic of barley in Oklahoma, d-p
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it