MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409732477 · doi:10.1007/978-1-60761-611-5_9

Quantification of Fungal Infection of Leaves with Digital Images and Scion Image Software

2010· article· en· W2409732477 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul H. Goodwin, Tom Hsiang

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPowdery mildewChlorosisDigital image analysisBiologyDigital imageHorticultureArtificial intelligenceImage processingComputer visionImage (mathematics)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital image analysis has been used to distinguish and quantify leaf color changes arising from a variety of factors. Its use to assess the percentage of leaf area with color differences caused by plant disease symptoms, such as necrosis, chlorosis, or sporulation, can provide a rigorous and quantitative means of assessing disease severity. A method is described for measuring symptoms of different fungal foliar infections that involves capturing the image with a standard flatbed scanner or digital camera followed by quantifying the area, where the color has been affected because of fungal infection. The method uses the freely available program, Scion Image for Windows or MAC, which is derived from the public domain software, NIH Image. The method has thus far been used to quantify the percentage of tissue with necrosis, chlorosis, or sporulation on leaves of variety of plants with several different diseases (anthracnose, apple scab, powdery mildew or rust).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207