Evaluation of commercial sugar beet hybrids for resistance to curly top in Malheur County, OR, 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial sugar beet hybrids were evaluated for resistance to Beet severe curly top virus in a furrow-irrigated sugar\nbeet field near Ontario, OR where curly top had been a problem in previous years. The field trial relied on natural infection\nand was planted on 6 Apr. Plots were planted to a density of 285,120 seeds/A, and thinned to 40,731 plants/A. Plots were\nfour rows wide (22 in. between rows) and 23 ft long. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with eight\nreplications. The crop was managed according to standard cultural practices. The weather during the growing season was\nnormal except for above average temperatures in Mar and Aug and above average precipitation in Apr and May. Disease\npressure was uniform and moderately severe. Disease data were recorded on 16 Sep by three individual raters separately\nusing a disease index of 0 to 9 (0 = no symptoms; 9 = dead plant). The three ratings per plot were averaged prior to analysis.\nThe center two rows were harvested on 13 and 14 Oct using a small plot harvester. Yield data were reduced by 10% to\naccount for tare. Sugar content of the beets was determined by the Amalgamated Sugar Co. laboratory using a polarimeter,\nand recoverable sugar was estimated based on percent sugar and conductivity. Data were analyzed using the general linear\nmodels procedure (Proc GLM-SAS), and Fisher's protected LSD was used for mean comparisons.\nYields were typical for this site and above average for growers. The commercial hybrids response to Beet severe curly top\nvirus ranged from acceptable (slight leaf curl = 2 to most leaves with moderate curling = 4) to severe (most larger leaves\nbecoming prostrate = 6). Analysis of variance indicated there were significant differences among hybrids for disease index,\nroot yield, sugar content, and estimated recoverable sugar. Based on Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation, our disease\nratings positively correlated (r s = 0.82, P < 0.0001) with those from the 2005 Curly Top Nursery in Kimberly, ID. There was\nan inverse relationship (rs = -0.63, P = 0.0005) between estimated recoverable sugar and disease index.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".