MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099900248

NAME AND AGENCY:

2015· article· en· W7099900248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Culture, and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacemeBlightIncidence (geometry)SclerotiniaCrop
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicLiterature, Culture, and CriticismFrench-language works237,207