Bibliographic record
Abstract
METHODS: The presence of Sotrytis cinerea and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, the causal agents of blossom blight, in alfalfa flowers was assessed in Alberta (AB), Saskatchewan (SK) and Manitoba (MB). Seed production fields in the Peace River region of northern AB and in MB were examined in late July. In SK, fields were assessed in mid-July and again in early August. In southern AB, visual assessments of symptoms (florets fused and matted with fungal hyphae, or sclerotia in flowers) were made in mid- to late-August. In northern AB, five flower racemes were collected from each of six sites in each field. Four florets per raceme were plated onto acidified potato dextrose agar, without surface sterilization. In SK and MB, the oldest floret from each of four racemes, at each of 10 sites per field, was plated. The plates were incubated on the laboratory bench, and the incidence of pathogens was assessed after about ten days. Fungi were identified by microscopic examination of cultural characteristics, and some of the fungi were isolated into pure cultures for detailed examination. In southern AB, 100 racemes were rated at each of 10 sites in each field for blight symptoms. RESULTS AND COMMENTS: The mean incidence of B. cinerea in/on alfalfa blossoms in SK was greater than 60 % in July (Table l) , with a range from 3 % to 90 % in individual fields. The central region had above-normal rainfall, and substantial blossom blight was observed. The incidence of B. cinerea in the central region fell sharply in August, probably due to dry weather in July. Rainfall in spring and early summer in northern SK was well below
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.744 | 0.697 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".