MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923646413 · doi:10.36829/63cts.v3i2.261

Bioprospección de hiperparásitos de Hemileia vastatrix en Guatemala

2017· article· es· W2923646413 on OpenAlexaff
Soren S. Ramirez-Barillas, José Miguel Escobar-Sandoval, Gustavo Alvarez-Valenzuela

Bibliographic record

VenueCiencia Tecnologí­a y Salud · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and soil sciences
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La bioprospección de agentes de control biológico es una actividad primaria en la búsqueda de alternativas para el manejo de plagas y enfermedades; las reservas naturales dentro de plantaciones de café por las caracterí­sticas de biodiversidad son aptas para albergar diversidad microbiana y entre ellos agentes biocontroladores. El estudio se realizó en 10 fincas con reservas naturales con café, cinco en el departamento de Guatemala, cuatro en Sacatepéquez y una en Chimaltenango, los muestreos se realizaron en época seca y lluviosa; se obtuvo, documentó y determinaron en laboratorio los agentes hiperparásitos: Cladosporium hemileiae Steyaert, y Lecanicillium lecanii (Zimmerm.) Zare & W. Gams y además un insecto micófago Mycodiplosis sp. (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae). Se evaluaron las cepas de los hongos hiperparásitos con el í­ndice de velocidad de crecimiento micelial (IVCM) y producción de conidiosporas. Se estableció que las mejores cepas de C. hemileiae fueron: Morán época seca parte baja, San Sebastián época seca y Guardabarranca parte alta; para L. lecanii fueron: San Sebastián época seca y Corral Viejo estación lluviosa parte baja.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiencia Tecnologí­a y SaludSame topicPlant and soil sciencesFrench-language works237,207