MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000692593 · doi:10.5539/jas.v12n2p130

Screening of Sour Passion Fruit for Reaction to Bacterial Spot and Passion Fruit Woodiness Disease

2020· article· en· W3000692593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne Pinheiro Costa, Isadora Nogueira, José Ricardo Peixoto, Luiz Eduardo Bassay Blum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsPassifloraPassion fruitHorticultureLeaf spotBiologyBacterial diseaseInoculationBacterial wiltVeterinary medicineMedicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of resistant varieties is a promising strategy for bacterial spot disease (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. passiflorae-Xap) and passion fruit woodiness disease (PWD; Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic virus-CABMV) control in sour passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims). This study aimed at evaluating the reaction of 12 sour passion fruit half-sib progenies to both mechanically inoculated Xap and CABMV, under protected cultivation. The bacterial spot and PWD severity degrees observed reveal the existence of variability within progenies. MAR20#2005 and BRS GA1 revealed the lowest bacterial disease severity scores while MAR20#41, MAR20#2005, and Rosa Intenso 1 showed the lowest PWD severity scores. MAR20#41 presented the lowest disease incidence in all evaluations, demonstrating a slow increase in the number of plants with symptoms over time. Also, MAR20#41 stood out as the progeny with the greatest number of plants presenting resistance to PWD at the end of the study. Among the progenies selected, MAR20#2005 was the most promising for presenting the lowest severity scores for both bacterial spot and PWD.

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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207