MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618992062 · doi:10.1094/phyto-107-2-s2.5

Abstracts of Presentations at the 2016 Northeastern Division Meeting

2017· article· en· W2618992062 on OpenAlexaff
jhon munoz

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDivision (mathematics)Library scienceComputer scienceArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frogskin disease (FSD) is the most important constraint to cassava crop as it directly affects the production of roots, causing yield losses as high as 90% for farmers in Cauca, Colombia. The phytoplasma associated with FSD belongs to the 16SrIII-L subgroup and was isolated using an artificial culture medium kept under anaerobic conditions. In this study, our goal was to evaluate the pathogenicity of phytoplasma strains isolated from cassava diseased roots. Cassava clones CM 2952, Col 1, Col 896, Bra 184, SM 909-25, Per 334, Per 326, Per 534, and Per 1999, were evaluated. In vitro plants were grown in a greenhouse for 60 days and inoculated with phytoplasma by stem and root injection of liquid phytoplasma cells medium. Inoculated plants were maintained in an insect-proof greenhouse until root symptoms developed. The control plants were inoculated with liquid medium without phytoplasma cells. The inoculated plants were evaluated every two months. Pathogenicity was confirmed in five (CM 2952, Col 1, Col 896, Bra 184, SM 909-25) of ten genotypes exhibiting severe FSD symptoms. The phytoplasma was re-isolated in vitro from cassava symptomatic roots and identification confirmed by nested-PCR, restriction fragment length polymorphism and sequence analyses of amplified rDNA products. This study reports for the first time the pathogenicity of phytoplasma isolated on artificial culture medium originated from cassava roots

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207