MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112016155 · doi:10.13158/heia.25.2.2010.125

Further Contributions to the Genus<i>Rinodina</i>(Physciaceae, Lecanoromycetidae): Two Species New to Science and a New Record for the Canadian High Arctic

2012· article· en· W2112016155 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. W. Sheard, James C. Lendemer, Toby Spribille, Göran Thor, Tor Tønsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueHerzogia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Academy of SciencesDivision of Environmental BiologyCity University of New York
KeywordsArcticDisjunctThallusGenusBiogeographyDisjunct distributionLichenThe arcticGeographyEcologyBiologyBotanyPopulationOceanographyGeologyDemographyPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sheard, J. W., Lendemer, J. C., Spribille, T., Thor, G. & Tønsberg, T. 2012. Further contributions to the genus Rinodina (Physciaceae, Lecanoromycetidae): two species new to science and a new record for the Canadian High Arctic. — Herzogia 25: 125–143.Two species of Rinodina are described as new to science (R. buckii and R. bullata) and a third is reported for the first time from arctic Canada (R. ochracea). Rinodina buckii, a sorediate species that resembles R. willeyi is described from disjunct localities in East Asia and the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America. Rinodina bullata, a species with a peculiar minutely areolate thallus that is frequently sterile, is described from the central Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America. Rinodina ochracea, originally described from Greenland, is reported from the Northwest Territories in Canada. The newly described species are illustrated with both colour light micrographs (CLMs) and scanning electron micrographs (SEMs), and maps of their geographic distributions are presented. CLMs and SEMs of R. excrescens and R. willeyi are also provided for comparison.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHerzogiaSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207