MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977626008 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.3806568

Characterization and pathogenicity of <i>Rhizoctonia</i> spp. from field crops in Canada

2016· article· en· W6977626008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and Radicalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathogenicityCropHost (biology)CanolaCrown (dentistry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey for the presence of <i>Rhizoctonia</i> species on barley, bean, canola, corn, pea, soybean and wheat in 170 fields in Canada was completed during 2009–2011. <i>Rhizoctonia solani</i> was recovered from 52 (31%) of the 170 fields surveyed. A total of 191 isolates of <i>R. solani</i> belonging to anastomosis groups (AG) AG 2-1, AG 2-2, AG 4, AG 5, AG 9 and AG 11 were recovered. Fifty-two binucleate isolates of <i>Rhizoctonia</i> spp. were also recovered from 35 (21%) of the crops surveyed. In growth room pathogenicity studies, isolates belonging to AG 2-1 were pathogenic primarily on canola while isolates of other anastomosis groups tended to have wider host ranges. Symptoms included pre- and post-emergence damping off, crown rot and, to a lesser extent, root rot. The majority of binucleate isolates were not pathogenic or only had low aggressiveness on the hosts tested. There was considerable variation in host range among isolates of <i>R. solani</i> within individual AGs, and isolates recovered from asymptomatic seedlings of some hosts were pathogenic to other hosts often used in the same rotation. Collectively, the results are important for documenting the widespread occurrence of <i>R. solani</i> in seedlings of field crops in Canada, for characterizing variation in AGs and host range, and for identifying effective crop sequences used in crop rotations.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

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)0.0270.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicIslamic Studies and RadicalismFrench-language works237,207