MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096427805

Canadian Onion Production Depends on Fungicides International Pesticide Benefits Case Study No. 77, April 2013

2015· article· en· W7096427805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotrytisFungicideBulbBlightMuckPesticideCropBotrytis cinerea
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Onion is one of the most important vegetable crops produced in Canada with an annual production of 210,000 tons valued at $74 million. Canadian production of onions is centered on the muck soils in the eastern provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In 1952, a leaf spot and wilt disease (Botrytis leaf blight, BLB) caused by Botrytis squamosa was first recorded in Ontario where widespread injury to the foliage of yellow bulb onions occurred [1]. A three-year research program in the 1950s demonstrated that fungicides prevented an average loss of 15 % in onion yield [1]. Botrytis spores land on onion leaves and, in the presence of moisture, germinate and produce enzymes that kill leaf tissue. Botrytis leaf blight causes early death of the leaves and undersized mature bulbs. Severely affected onion fields may take on a blighted appearance with most leaves dead and dried out. Bulb size is reduced 50 % or more by botrytis leaf blight. In eastern Canada, the disease is generally present every year [2]. Since there is a premium price for large onions, loss of Botrytis leaf blight control can have large economic consequences [2]. B. squamosa overwinters as sclerotia on crop residues, or on the soil surface. In the

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→