MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006146196 · doi:10.1139/b08-054

<i>Endosporium</i>, a new endoconidial genus allied to the Myriangiales

2008· article· en· W2006146196 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
A. Tsuneda, Marie L. Davey, Sarah Hambleton, Randolph S. Currah

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBotanyDothideomycetesConidiumGenusType speciesHyphaTaxonomy (biology)TaxonPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new endoconidial genus, Endosporium gen. nov., is reported from Alberta, Canada. Two species are described: Endosporium populi-tremuloidis Tsuneda sp. nov. (type species) isolated from a heavily colonized bud of Populus tremuloides Michx., and Endosporium aviarium Tsuneda sp. nov. isolated from the skin of Bombycilla garrulus (L.) (Bohemian waxwing) and a twig of Populus balsamifera L. This genus is morphologically similar to Phaeotheca in forming black, slow-growing colonies (conidiomata) containing numerous, conidiogenous, cellular clumps, but different in that (i) colonies possess aerial, determinate hyphae on the surface; (ii) mature colonies eventually collapse to release a mixture of conidiogenous cellular clumps, endoconidia, and blastic conidia in slimy liquid; and (iii) endoconidia are hyaline. Phylogenetic analyses of nuclear rDNA SSU, LSU, and ITS sequences indicate that Endosporium is phylogenetically distant from other endoconidial taxa, including Phaeotheca, and is most closely related to the Myriangiales (Dothideomycetes). Similarities in stroma and conidioma development as well as ecology between the two taxa suggest that Endosporium can be accommodated within this order, making it the first endoconidial and first black meristematic genus reported in the Myriangiales.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207