MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Draft genomes of Amanita jacksonii, Ceratocystis albifundus, Fusarium circinatum, Huntiella omanensis, Leptographium procerum, Rutstroemia sydowiana, and Sclerotinia echinophila

2014· article· en· W2079756454 on OpenAlexaff
Magriet A. van der Nest, Lisa A. Beirn, Jo Anne Crouch, Jill E. Demers, Z. Wilhelm de Beer, Lieschen De Vos, Thomas R. Gordon, Jean‐Marc Moncalvo, Kershney Naidoo, Santiago Sánchez‐Ramírez, Danielle Roodt, Quentin C. Santana, Stephanie Slinski, Matt Stata, Stephen J. Taerum, P. Markus Wilken, Andi M. Wilson, Michael J. Wingfield, Brenda D. Wingfield

Bibliographic record

VenueIMA Fungus · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCeratocystisBiologyGenomeBotanyGeneGeneticsFungus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genomes of fungi provide an important resource to resolve issues pertaining to their taxonomy, biology, and evolution. The genomes of Amanita jacksonii, Ceratocystis albifundus, a Fusarium circinatum variant, Huntiella omanensis, Leptographium procerum, Sclerotinia echinophila, and Rutstroemia sydowiana are presented in this genome announcement. These seven genomes are from a number of fungal pathogens and economically important species. The genome sizes range from 27 Mb in the case of Ceratocystis albifundus to 51.9 Mb for Rutstroemia sydowiana. The latter also encodes for a predicted 17 350 genes, more than double that of Ceratocystis albifundus. These genomes will add to the growing body of knowledge of these fungi and provide a value resource to researchers studying these fungi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations65
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMA FungusSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207