MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154730294 · doi:10.33584/rps.13.2006.3126

Characterisation of fungal endophytes present in Elymus canadensis (Canada wildrye)

2007· article· en· W3154730294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirsti Burr, Shipra Mittal, A. Hopkins, Carolyn A. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueNZGA Research and Practice Series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSamuel Roberts Noble Foundation
KeywordsElymusBiologyEndophytePerennial plantEpichloëNeotyphodiumBotanyPoaceaeLolium perenneSymbiosisBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elymus canadensis (Canada wildrye - CWR) is a native perennial cool season bunch grass tolerant to a range of soils, winter hardy and able to grow across the United Sates and as far North as Southern Alaska. Canada wildrye is often used for prairie restoration, conservation and erosion stabilisation. Young CWR plant tissue is palatable and nutritious to grazing animals. CWR has been reported to harbour a sexual endophytic fungus, Epichloë elymi, but some accessions have been identified that have not produced stroma. We isolated and characterised the epichloë endophytes from three endophyte-infected CWR accessions collected from Mexico and Texas. We established that the endophytes present in these CWR accessions are of hybrid origin, with E. elymi and E. amarillans ancestral genomes, and are therefore considered to be asexual isolates. The endophytes were examined for their alkaloid potential, particularly the detrimental ergot alkaloids, with inconclusive results. Keywords: Elymus canadensis, Canada wildrye, hybrid, Epichloë elymi, Epichloë amarillans

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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNZGA Research and Practice SeriesSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207