MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102043654 · doi:10.7202/1072868ar

Evaluation of phytosanitary products for the management of raspberry late leaf rust [Pucciniastrum americanum (Farl.) Arthur]

2020· article· en· W3102043654 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maxime Delisle‐Houde, François Demers, Russell J. Tweddell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytosanitary certificationBlowing a raspberryHorticultureRust (programming language)BiologyFungicideBotanyToxicologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different phytosanitary products (Actinovate SP, Cabrio EG, Double Nickel 55, Fullback 125 SC, Kumulus DF, Nova, Phostrol, Pristine WG, Serenade Opti, Sirocco, StorOx) registered in Canada for the management of various diseases of horticultural crops but not for the management of late leaf rust (LLR) of raspberry were tested against the latter. Efficacy of each product was first determined in vitro on raspberry leaf discs. Based on in vitro efficacy, tested products can be ranked (from the most to the least effective) as follows: Nova, Sirocco, Fullback 125 SC, Pristine WG, Phostrol, Kumulus DF, StorOx, Cabrio EG, Serenade Opti, and Actinovate SP/Double Nickel 55. Five products (Fullback 125 SC, Kumulus DF, Nova, Phostrol, Sirocco) were further tested in the field. Foliar applications of Fullback 125 SC and Nova significantly reduced disease severity as compared with the control. This study shows that the triazole fungicides Fullback 125 SC and Nova were effective against LLR of raspberry as determined using in vitro and field assays and proposes a fast, inexpensive, and easy in vitro method to be used to select phytosanitary products to be tested for field assays.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207