MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088424445 · doi:10.1080/0028825x.2006.9513007

The basidiomycete genus <i>Favolaschia</i> in New Zealand

2006· article· de· W2088424445 on OpenAlexaff
Peter R. Johnston, Stephen R. Whitton, Peter Buchanan, Duckchul Park, Shaun R. Pennycook, J.E. Johnson, Jean‐Marc Moncalvo

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGenusGeographySouthern chinaChinaKey (lock)EcologyBiologyDistribution (mathematics)ZoologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four species of Favolaschia are accepted for New Zealand: F. calocera, F. pustulosa, and two new species F. cyatheae and F. austrocyatheae. Favolaschia cyatheae, F. austrocyatheae, and F. pustulosa are native to New Zealand. Favolaschia calocera, first described from Madagascar, has also been previously reported from New Zealand, Norfolk Island, and Italy. We report a wider geographical distribution for this species. Levels of genetic variation between collections suggest that F. calocera is paleotropical, native to Madagascar, southern China, and Thailand, with recent (probably human‐induced) introductions to Norfolk Island, Kenya, Italy, New Zealand, and Reunion Island. ITS sequences show that the tiny monocotyledon‐inhabiting F. minima is not a Favolaschia; it is here transferred to Panellus. Taxonomic descriptions, illustrations, distribution maps within New Zealand, and a key to the Favolaschia species known from New Zealand are provided, together with a discussion on past miscitations of the genus Favolaschia and its species.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207