MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361859467 · doi:10.47371/mycosci.myc48047

Endophytic and epiphytic phyllosphere fungi of red-osier dogwood (<i>Cornus stolonifera</i>) in British Columbia

2007· article· en· W4361859467 on OpenAlexaffabout
Takashi Osono

Bibliographic record

VenueMycoscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada
FundersKyoto University Foundation
KeywordsShootBiologyEpiphytePhyllosphereBotanyInflorescenceShrubApex (geometry)Horticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endophytic and epiphytic phyllosphere fungi associated with red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), a deciduous shrub, were examined in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Current-year shoots were divided into four types based on the absence or presence of inflorescence and secondary elongated shoots at the apex of primary shoots. Leaves on these shoots were then classified into six categories so as to examine the effect of flowering, secondary shoot elongation, and shoot order within current year shoots on the occurrence of phyllosphere fungi. Species composition of fungi was markedly different between the interior and surface of leaves, whereas it was relatively similar among the six leaf categories in the interior or on the surface. Frequencies of the eight major species were not different between leaves on flowering and nonflowering shoots. The frequency of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides in the leaf interior was greater on leaves on the primary shoots that elongated the secondary shoots than on those that did not, and was greater on leaves on the primary shoots than on those on the secondary shoots. On the other hand, secondary shoot elongation and shoot order had no effect on the frequencies of C. gloeosporioides and the other seven epiphytes on leaf surfaces.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMycoscienceSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207