MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285345126 · doi:10.1201/9781003180715-22

Tan spot disease under the lenses of plant pathologists

2021· book-chapter· en· W4285345126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reem Aboukhaddour, Mohamed Hafez, Stephen E. Strelkov, M. R. Fernandez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseMedicineOptometryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tan spot is a relatively new yet one of the most destructive foliar diseases of wheat worldwide ( Savary et al., 2019 ). The causal agent, Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (Died.) Drechs. (Ptr), is an ascomycete fungus first identified as a pathogen of wheat in the 1920s ( Nisikado, 1928 ). Until about 1970, Ptr was reported from many parts of the world, causing no or mild symptoms and occasional severe but localized outbreaks. The damaging effects of tan spot, however, became more pronounced starting in the 1970s, especially in the temperate regions of Australia, the American Great Plains, and the Canadian Prairies. On susceptible wheat, a yield loss of 49% was reported under conditions conducive for disease development ( Rees et al., 1982 ). The emergence of tan spot as a major disease in North America and Australia was explained mainly by the shift in agricultural practices to minimum tillage, as Ptr is stubble-borne and survives on crop residues. The widespread cultivation of susceptible wheat, and the horizontal gene transfer of ToxA , a necrosis-inducing effector, to Ptr from a related fungal pathogen, are now also recognized as essential factors in its sudden emergence ( Friesen et al., 2006 ; McDonald et al., 2019 ).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.029

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases→French-language works237,207→