MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408903181 · doi:10.1094/php-08-24-0082-s

Tracking the Distribution and Risk of Tar Spot of Corn in Indiana from 2015 to 2022

2025· article· en· W4408903181 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Health Progress · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureIndiana Corn Marketing Council
KeywordsBiologytar (computing)Tracking (education)Distribution (mathematics)MathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tar spot of corn ( Zea mays L.), caused by Phyllachora maydis, was first confirmed in the United States in 2015 in Illinois and Indiana but has since spread to a total of 20 states and Ontario and Quebec, Canada. Severe tar spot epidemics have caused unexpected and significant yield losses in corn in the Midwest. It is critical to document the movement and risk factors of this disease to develop effective management strategies. Tar spot distribution and disease intensity data were collected in Indiana from 2015 to 2022. Tar spot severity data were assessed from images of leaves submitted to the Purdue Pest and Diagnostic Laboratory from 2015 to 2018, and a statewide survey was conducted annually from 2019 to 2022. In each county, two or more corn fields were scouted for tar spot, percent field incidence and average leaf severity were documented, and county-level weather data were collected. In Indiana, tar spot severity was negatively correlated with temperature and positively correlated with precipitation during June and August but negatively correlated with July precipitation. High relative humidity (>90%) was also positively correlated with tar spot severity during June, July, and August. Fields in northern Indiana had the highest severity throughout the survey and have the highest risk for the disease in the future. Pockets of tar spot outbreaks indicate that once it is found locally, favorable environmental conditions of moderate temperatures and fluctuating periods of seasonal moisture may increase the risk of a severe epidemic in a field in future years.

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.

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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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