MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758286886 · doi:10.1094/pdis-04-17-0512-fe

Managing Grapevine Trunk Diseases With Respect to Etiology and Epidemiology: Current Strategies and Future Prospects

2017· review· en· W2758286886 on OpenAlexaff
David Gramaje, Mark Sosnowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'EnvironnementComité National des Interprofessions des Vins à Appellation d'OrigineConseil Régional AquitaineMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche
KeywordsBiologyViticultureEpidemiologyLongevityBiotechnologyVitis viniferaPathologyMedicineBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fungal trunk diseases are some of the most destructive diseases of grapevine in all grape growing areas of the world. Management of GTDs has been intensively studied for decades with some great advances made in our understanding of the causal pathogens, their epidemiology, impact, and control. However, due to the breadth and complexity of the problem, no single effective control measure has been developed. Management of GTD must be holistic and integrated, with an interdisciplinary approach conducted in both nurseries and vineyards that integrates plant pathology, agronomy, viticulture, microbiology, epidemiology, biochemistry, physiology, and genetics. In this review, we identify a number of areas of future prospect for effective management of GTDs worldwide, which, if addressed, will provide a positive outlook on the longevity of vineyards in the future.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations462
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207