Open letter to the scientific community of mycologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To help minimise invalid publication of newly proposed scientific names of fungi, Korf (1995) provided advice on how to guarantee valid publication, and offered a few simple guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors. He regretted that “unfortunately many of the errors are committed by highly respected mycologists, and published in thoroughly respectable journals” and emphasised that “although the ultimate responsibility for publishing correct names lies with authors, clearly reviewers and editors are shirking their duties to advise authors of such errors prior to publication.” To be published validly, names must be introduced according to requirements of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter et al. 1994, 2000). Since 1990, it has been compulsory to deposit the vouchers for new species and infraspecific taxa, the name-bearing types, in an herbarium or other collection. It is generally accepted that such voucher specimens should be deposited in publicly accessible reference collections such as herbaria. However, voucher collections are invariably necessary, not only when new fungi are described, but also in connection with any scientific study, whether by taxonomists, systematists, physiologists, chemists, molecular biologists, pathologists, ecologists, clinicians, etc., dealing with organisms. It is essential to preserve voucher specimens as dried material and, where possible, as permanently preserved living cultures. When none of the investigated material is preserved, it is impossible to confirm the identity of the investigated taxa. If species concepts change, it is particularly crucial to be able to re-identify the organism at a later time. There are several examples of entities once thought to be species but now revealed as species complexes, i.e., the species concept has been changed, including Pisolithus tinctorius (Burgess et al. 1995) and Paxillus involutus (Fries 1985; Hahn and Agerer 1999). In such cases, re-identification of the original material is necessary to know which organism was studied so that previous work will continue to be relevant. In recent years, molecular biological studies have had a tremendous impact on systematics, taxonomy, and ecology. DNA sequences are frequently obtained from fungal cultures. Too often there is no reference to either an exact citation of 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.062 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".