MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808327574 · doi:10.1094/pdis-02-18-0245-re

Validating <i>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</i> Apothecial Models to Predict Sclerotinia Stem Rot in Soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) Fields

2018· article· en· W2808327574 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime F. Willbur, Mamadou L. Fall, Adam M. Byrne, Scott A Chapman, Megan McCaghey, Brian Mueller, Roger Schmidt, Martin I. Chilvers, Daren S. Mueller, Mehdi Kabbage, Loren J. Giesler, Shawn P. Conley, Damon L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureWisconsin Soybean Marketing BoardUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUnited Soybean BoardNorth Central Soybean Research ProgramU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSclerotinia sclerotiorumSclerotiniaAscocarpBiologyStem rotGrowing seasonAgronomyWeather stationCropHorticultureBotanyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In soybean, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum apothecia are the sources of primary inoculum (ascospores) critical for Sclerotinia stem rot (SSR) development. We recently developed logistic regression models to predict the presence of apothecia in irrigated and nonirrigated soybean fields. In 2017, small-plot trials were established to validate two weather-based models (one for irrigated fields and one for nonirrigated fields) to predict SSR development. Additionally, apothecial scouting and disease monitoring were conducted in 60 commercial fields in three states between 2016 and 2017 to evaluate model accuracy across the growing region. Site-specific air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed data were obtained through the Integrated Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (iPiPE) and Dark Sky weather networks. Across all locations, iPiPE-driven model predictions during the soybean flowering period (R1 to R4 growth stages) explained end-of-season disease observations with an accuracy of 81.8% using a probability action threshold of 35%. Dark Sky data, incorporating bias corrections for weather variables, explained end-of-season disease observations with 87.9% accuracy (in 2017 commercial locations in Wisconsin) using a 40% probability threshold. Overall, these validations indicate that these two weather-based apothecial models, using either weather data source, provide disease risk predictions that both reduce unnecessary chemical application and accurately advise applications at critical times.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207