MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6957897863 · doi:10.60692/k54jw-7dd88

Spatial distribution and identification of potential risk regions to rice blast disease in different rice ecosystems of Karnataka

2022· article· en· W6957897863 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial distributionKrigingSpatial analysisVariogramMultivariate interpolationGeostatisticsSpatial ecologyCommon spatial patternDistribution (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rice is a globally important crop and highly vulnerable to rice blast disease (RBD). We studied the spatial distribution of RBD by considering the 2-year exploratory data from 120 sampling sites over varied rice ecosystems of Karnataka, India. Point pattern and surface interpolation analyses were performed to identify the spatial distribution of RBD. The spatial clusters of RBD were generated by spatial autocorrelation and Ripley's K function. Further, inverse distance weighting (IDW), ordinary kriging (OK), and indicator kriging (IK) approaches were utilized to generate spatial maps by predicting the values at unvisited locations using neighboring observations. Hierarchical cluster analysis using the average linkage method identified two main clusters of RBD severity. From the Local Moran's I, most of the districts were clustered together (at I > 0), except the coastal and interior districts (at I < 0). Positive spatial dependency was observed in the Coastal, Hilly, Bhadra, and Upper Krishna Project ecosystems (p > 0.05), while Tungabhadra and Kaveri ecosystem districts were clustered together at p < 0.05. From the kriging, Hilly ecosystem, middle and southern parts of Karnataka were found vulnerable to RBD. This is the first intensive study in India on understanding the spatial distribution of RBD using geostatistical approaches, and the findings from this study help in setting up ecosystem-specific management strategies against RBD.

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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207