Development and Evaluation of a Model that Predicts Grapevine Anthracnose Caused by <i>Elsinoë ampelina</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is a serious threat in many vineyards, and its control requires repeated application of fungicides, usually on a calendar basis. A better understanding of the pathogen life cycle would help growers manage anthracnose more safely and effectively. After conducting a systematic literature search of grape anthracnose, we used the retrieved information and data to develop a mechanistic model based on systems analysis. The model simulates production and maturation of primary inoculum, infection caused by both primary and secondary conidia, and lesion formation and production of secondary inoculum. The model was validated for its ability to predict first seasonal onset of anthracnose lesions by using 8 years of data collected at Auckland, New Zealand, and disease progress during the season by using 3 years of data collected at Frelighsburg, Canada. Overall, the model provided accurate predictions of infection occurrence, with 0.96 accuracy, 0.91 sensitivity, and 0.97 specificity. The model also showed good accuracy for predicting disease progress, with a concordance correlation coefficient between observed and predicted disease severities of 0.92, a root mean square error of 0.14, and a coefficient of residual mass of 0.06. Although the model failed to predict 10 of 110 real infection periods, these missed infections led to only mild disease symptoms. We therefore conclude that the model is reliable and can be used to reduce the costs of anthracnose management by improving the timing of fungicide applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".