MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767992669 · doi:10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.004

Occurrence of Fusarium species and mycotoxins in Swiss oats—Impact of cropping factors

2017· article· en· W2767992669 on OpenAlexaff
Torsten Schöneberg, Eveline Jenny, Felix E. Wettstein, Thomas D. Bucheli, Fabio Mascher, Mario Bertossa, Tomke Musa, Keith A. Seifert, Tom Gräfenhan, Beat Keller, Susanne Vogelgsang

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Agronomy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusariumMycotoxinBiologyAgronomyCroppingCropContaminationVeterinary medicineHorticultureAgricultureBiotechnologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 2013 and 2015, 325 samples of commercially grown oats were collected in Switzerland along with data on respective cropping factors. The incidence of different Fusarium species was determined using a seed health test and quantitative PCR was used to measure the amount of F. poae and F. langsethiae DNA. Mycotoxins were quantified by LC–MS/MS. Among all Fusarium species, F. poae was found to be dominant whereas T-2/HT-2 toxins were the major mycotoxins. Samples from fields with the previous crop cereal showed the highest concentrations of T-2/HT-2. Higher amounts of nivalenol (NIV) and T-2/HT-2 were detected in samples from fields with reduced tillage compared with samples from ploughed fields. Furthermore, we observed a higher contamination with NIV and T-2/HT-2 in winter sown varieties compared with spring sown varieties. Results from the current study are highly valuable to develop recommendations for optimised cropping systems that reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination of oat grains.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations95
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AgronomySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207