MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113634873 · doi:10.1080/21501203.2011.584577

Fueling the future with fungal genomics

2011· article· en· W2113634873 on OpenAlexaff
Igor V. Grigoriev, Daniel Cullen, Stephen B. Goodwin, David S. Hibbett, Thomas W. Jeffries, Christian P. Kubicek, Cheryl R. Kuske, Jon Magnuson, Francis Martin, Joseph W. Spatafora, Adrian Tsang, Scott Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueMycology&#58 An International Journal on Fungal Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersOffice of ScienceJoint Genome InstituteU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsGenomicsComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceGenomeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fungi play important roles across the range of current and future biofuel production processes. From crop/feedstock health to plant biomass saccharification, enzyme production to bioprocesses for producing ethanol, higher alcohols, or future hydrocarbon biofuels, fungi are involved. Research and development are underway to understand the underlying biological processes and improve them to make bioenergy production efficient on an industrial scale. Genomics is the foundation of the systems biology approach that is being used to accelerate the research and development efforts across the spectrum of topic areas that impact biofuels production. In this review, we discuss past, current, and future advances made possible by genomic analyses of the fungi that impact plant/feedstock health, degradation of lignocellulosic biomass, and fermentation of sugars to ethanol, hydrocarbon biofuels, and renewable chemicals.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations249
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMycology&#58 An International Journal on Fungal BiologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207