Ectomycorrhizal community composition of <i>Pinus tabulaeformis</i> assessed by ITS-RFLP and ITS sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal composition was examined in a Pinus tabulaeformis Carr. forest. A total of 28 root samples of P. tabulaeformis were collected in June and September. Thirty-five ECM morphotypes were identified according to ECM morphological characters, and 26 ECM fungi were identified based on the analyses of ITS-RFLP and ITS sequences. Tomentella , Sebacina , and Tuber were common genera, and Atheliaceae sp., Lactarius deliciosus , Tomentella ferruginea , and Tomentella sp. 3 were dominant species. Of these ECM fungi, 13 were found in June, 19 in September, and 6 during both sampling times. Atheliaceae sp. and T. ferruginea were the dominant fungi both in June and September. Lactarius deliciosus was dominant in June, but rare in September. Tomentella sp. 3 was dominant in September but rare in June.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".