MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073882098 · doi:10.1139/w02-010

The relative ability of fungi from<i>Sphagnum fuscum</i>to decompose selected carbon substrates

2002· article· en· W2073882098 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Markus N. Thormann, Randolph S. Currah, Suzanne E. Bayley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam TrustsUniversity of AlbertaDirectorate for Biological SciencesSociety of Wetland Scientists
KeywordsMicrofungiSphagnumBotanyTannic acidBiologyCellulosePeatEcologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine species from a suite of 55 microfungi isolated from living and decomposing Sphagnum fuscum were selected for studies of in vitro decomposition of tannic acid, cellulose, and starch. In vitro decomposition of S. fuscum plants and spruce wood chips was also examined. Oidiodendron maius and Oidiodendron scytaloides degraded tannic acid, giving a positive reaction for polyphenol oxidases. Most taxa degraded cellulose and starch via the synthesis of cellulases and amylase, respectively. Mass losses of spruce wood chips generally exceeded those of S. fuscum. A basidiomycete, similar to Bjerkandera adusta, caused the greatest mass losses in spruce wood chips (10.2%), while O. scytaloides caused the smallest mass losses (3.4%) after 8 weeks. For S. fuscum, Sordaria fimicola caused the greatest (5.1%) and Mucor hiemalis the smallest (0.1%) mass losses after 8 weeks. Filamentous microfungi have considerable potential to decompose a variety of carbon substrates of bryophilous residues in peatlands.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207