Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Master's thesis we studied whether the extracts of the three goldenrod (Solidago) species have antifungal activity. Since the common goldenrod (S. virgaurea) is indigenous, and the other two – Canadian goldenrod (S. canadensis) and giant goldenrod (S. gigantea) are invasive alien species, we tested the differences in antifungal activity according to their origin and used plant material (leafs, inflorescence) and way of preparing extracts (aqueous, organic – 96 % ethanol). Fungi used in the study were: Alternaria alternata, Alternaria infectoria, Aspergillus flavus, Aureobasidium pullulans, Botrytis cynerea, Epicoccum nigrum, Fusarium poae and Penicillium palitans. We selected these species because of their negative effects on plants grown for food. After one week we measured the area of fungal mycelium and calculated the growth percentage according to the control. We found out that inhibition of fungal growth was similar when aqueous and organic extracts were applied. Also leaf extract caused similar effects as inflorescence extracts. According to the sensitivity to the extracts, the fungi followed the order: F. poae being the most sensitive, than E. nigurm, A. alternata, C. botrytis, A. pullulans, A. infectoria and P. palitans as the least sensitive. The differences in efficiency of the extracts of the leaf and inflorescence extracts of three goldenrod species were not significant.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".