MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005086770

Population structure, somatic incompatibility, and sporocarp overwintering in Chondrostereum purpureum

2000· dissertation· en· W7005086770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionHyporeflexiaArticular cartilage damageLiquationGestational periodSulfinpyrazone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation was conducted o f the population structure, the somatic incompatibility
\nreaction, and sporocarp overwintering in Chondrostereum purpureum (Pers.:Fr.) Pouzar, a
\nproposed mycoherbicide of undesirable hardwood species. Chondrostereum purpureum breeding
\npopulations o f recent cut-over sites in Thunder Bay, Ontario were found to have a high number of
\nindividuals possessing different alleles for somatic incompatibility. Up to nine fungal individuals
\nper wood unit (logs, stumps) were found, with the majority of wood units having only one to
\nthree individuals. The macroscopic appearance of the somatic incompatibility interaction zone on
\nmalt extract agar varied among paired isolates and was occasionally ambiguous. Phenotypic
\nvariability of the interaction zone ranged from scant mycelia to massed hyphae between the two
\ncolonies. Microscopically the sparse interaction zone had chains of swollen spindle-shaped cells,
\nwhile the massed interaction zone had distorted hyphae, encoded hyphae, and hyphal knots. Of
\noverwintered sporocarps collected in the spring o f 1998 and 1999, 86% produced viable spores.
\nBasidiospore levels in the spring may be greater than once thought, and thus may pose a threat to
\nwinter-damaged trees. This should be considered in the assessment of the epidemiology of C.
\npurpureum, and in the assessment o f this fungus as a biocontrol agent.

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 score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207