MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095335991

Fréchette et al. Resistance of wild Solanum accessions to aphids and other potato pests in Quebec field conditions

2009· article· en· W7095335991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrosiphum euphorbiaeSolanum tuberosumMyzus persicaeLeptinotarsaColorado potato beetleAphidPotato virus YSolanum
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were done to determine the susceptibility of six wild potato accessions to the aphids Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Myzus persicae (Sulzer). Densities of aphid colonies were compared between caged Solanum pinnatisectum Dunal (Solanales: Solanaceae), S. polyadenium Greenmam, S. tarijense Hawkes, S. infundibuliforme Philippi, S. oplocense Hawkes, and S. stoloniferum Schlechted and Bouché, and the commercially cultivated potato plant S. tuberosum L. cv. Désirée. Moreover the susceptibility of S. polyadenium and S. tarijense to the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrlysomelidae), the potato flea beetle Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), and the potato leafhopper Empoasca fabae (Harris) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) was compared to that of S. tuberosum cv. Désirée in the field. Results indicated that S. polyadenium and S. tarijense were more resistant to M. persicae than S. pinnatisectum and the commercially cultivated S. tuberosum cv. Désirée. Solanum polyadenium was more resistant to aphids than S. tarijense in 2004, but not in 2005. Moreover, S. polyadenium and S. tarijense were more resistant than S. tuberosum cv.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207