MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313768632 · doi:10.1094/php-2010-0920-01-rs

Relative Virulence of <i>Botrytis cinerea</i> and <i>B. mali</i> in Apple Lesions

2010· article· en· W2313768632 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. H. Etebarian, Daniel T. O’Gorman, P. L. Sholberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Health Progress · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFungal Plant Pathogen Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotrytis cinereaBiologyInoculationPostharvestVirulenceHorticulturePrimer (cosmetics)LesionBotanyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Botrytis cinerea and recently B. mali have been identified as important postharvest pathogens of apples in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Three isolates of both B. cinerea and B. mali were studied alone and in combination by inoculating mature ‘Gala’ apple fruit to compare their potential for causing decay. The fruit were incubated at 20°C for 6 and 8 days when lesion areas were calculated from lesion diameters. The lesion areas in apples inoculated with B. cinerea ranged from 1020 to 1514 mm2 compared to 130 to 293 mm2 for B. mali after 6 days. Primers developed to specifically amplify B. mali or B. cinerea were used in a PCR test to determine which Botrytis spp. was present in a particular lesion and estimate the quantity of each species. Relative fluorescent intensity of DNA extracted from apple tissue co-inoculated with B. cinerea + B. mali and amplified with the B. cinerea specific primer averaged 102.3%. On the other hand, the fluorescence produced by the B. mali primer averaged only 11.6% from the same DNA samples. These results confirmed that when both B. cinerea and B. mali are mixed together, B. cinerea becomes the dominant pathogen. Accepted for publication 2 July 2010. Published 20 September 2010.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Health ProgressSame topicFungal Plant Pathogen ControlFrench-language works237,207