MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096639331

168

2014· article· en· W7096639331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegression analysisSuspension (topology)InoculationLinear regressionRegressionMaximum temperature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf-wetness duration and temperature required for infection of saskatoon leaves by Entomosporium mespili under controlled conditions Q.A. Holtslag, W.R. Remphrey, W.G.D. Fernando, R.G. St-Pierre, and S. Panicker Abstract: The influence of leaf-wetness duration and temperature on infection of Amelanchier alnifolia (saskatoon) by Entomosporium mespili was quantified in controlled-environment studies. Plants were inoculated with a conidial suspension and then subjected to a period of leaf wetness (0, 6, 12, and 24 h), after which they were moved to a growth room set at a fixed temperature (10, 15, 20, 25, and 30°C) for a period of 14 d. Infection levels rose as the leaf-wetness duration increased for combined temperature treatments up to 24 h. Temperatures between 10 and 20°C promoted optimal leaf infection for leaf-wetness periods longer than 6 h. Above the optimal temperature range, mean disease levels decreased. ANOVA with orthogonal contrasts and stepwise regression were used to create a regression equation that describes the relationship of E. mespili infection on saskatoon to both temperature and leaf-wetness duration. Combinations of temperatures between 10 and 25°C and leaf-wetness periods between 6 and 24 h were optimal for lesion development on younger saskatoon leaves.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0130.005

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207