Powdery mildews on crops and ornamentals in Canada: a summary of the phylogeny and taxonomy from 2000 – 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powdery mildew diseases on crops and ornamental plants are common and cause significant economic losses, by reducing the yield and quality of crops and downgrading the value of ornamentals. In surveys published annually in the Canadian Plant Disease Survey, powdery mildews were reported frequently. In recent years, the taxonomy of powdery mildew fungi has changed tremendously as the result of the increased application of molecular phylogenetic analyses. Several generic concepts have been re-adjusted. Many traditionally considered species turned out to be a complex of several phylogenetic species. In order to facilitate effective communication in the scientific community, it is important to apply the current correct names for field identifications. In this document, we summarize the powdery mildew fungi reported in the Canadian Plant Disease Survey from 2000 to 2019, address the taxonomic and nomenclatural issues associated with the listed species, and tentatively suggest correct names based on host plants wherever possible. Nevertheless, a reliable identification of the powdery mildew must depend on DNA sequence analyses and morphological examinations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".