MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353013468

RESISTANCE OF COLLECTION SAMPLES OF WINTER WHEAT TO LEAF DISEASES IN THE CONDITIONS OF ROSTOV REGION

2018· article· en· W4353013468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. G. Derova, N. V. Shishkin, Т. А. Grichanikova, N. P. Voytsutskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Biological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)Winter wheatAgronomyHorticultureBiologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

116 cultivars of winter wheat of different ecological-geographical origin were analyzed on resistance to leaf rust (Puccinia triticina Erikss) and powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis D.C.). These pathogens are the most spread and harmful in Rostov region. The infected plants decrease their productivity on 10-15%, sometimes even on 30%. Cultivars 75/481, Zolotokolosa, Pyvna (Ukraine) and KS 93 U 50 (US) which possess the highest resistance to leaf rust have been selected on the artificially infected allotment. Cultivars IL84-3132-1, KS 93 U 11 (US) and Zrazkova (Ukraine) turned to be the most resistant cultivars (infected on 10-25%). Cultivars KS 96 Wg RC 34 (US), Webster (Canada), Dobirna and Spivanka (Ukraine) turned to be less resistant. The rest cultivars were infected most of all, up to 40% and in some years up to 80-100%. During analyzing the study of winter wheat resistance to leaf rust we found 15 cultivars totally resistant to infection, among which Fokus, Derby, Gaspard (France), Banga (Latvia) and others. Due to long-term study we could select cultivars with a group resistance to leaf rust and powdery mildew. The study results can be used for cultivation of new varieties resistant to fungus diseases.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicAgriculture and Biological StudiesFrench-language works237,207