A list of eclectic viruses, virus-like diseases and viroids of grapevines that should not be considered for regulatory oversight: a global plea from virologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Grapevine (Vitis spp.) propagation material is profusely exchanged across geographic and regulatory boundaries. Trading germplasm increases the diversity of cultivars and rootstocks with enhanced viticultural attributes but also risks the dissemination of pests and detrimental pathogens such as viruses in new grape production areas. Therefore, regulations are established to facilitate the safe trade of Vitis propagation material with desirable traits. Regrettably regulations are sometimes inadequate. Consequently, the accessibility of desired germplasm for growers might be unduly delayed, providing opportunities to circumvent regulations by illegally introducing germplasm of interest, amidst risking epidemics of viruses of concern, including quarantined agents, and jeopardizing the health of vineyards. To address some of the regulatory limitations, scientists from around the world recently defined phantom agents in fruit crops, including grapevines, and provided a compelling case for their exclusion from regulatory oversight. Simultaneously, a group of virologists realized the need to complement the list of phantom agents in grapevines by considering additional viruses, virus-like diseases and viroids that should not be subject to regulatory oversight. Here, we present a list of nine viruses, 14 virus-like diseases, nine viroids, and 129 presumed viruses of the grapevine, that are not phantom agents but should be excluded from regulation or should not be regulated. Our list is anticipated to assist policy makers adopt regulations that expedite the safe exchange of Vitis germplasm across regulatory boundaries while reducing incentives for illicit introductions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".