MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531167930 · doi:10.1639/0747-9859-33.3.136

Reports of<i>Cladonia magyarica</i>and<i>C. humilis</i>in Manitoba

2016· article· en· W2531167930 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohanad Zraik, James T. Booth, Michele D. Piercey‐Normore

Bibliographic record

VenueEvansia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsCladoniaMathematicsBiologyBotanyLichen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Cladonia is widely distributed around the world. Since the section Cladonia contains species complexes that are difficult to distinguish, the distributions of species within these complexes are even less well-known than others. The cup-forming species, Cladonia magyarica, is morphologically similar to C. pyxidata and C. pocillum; and C. humilis is morphologically similar to C. conista and C. chlorophaea. Both species, C. magyarica and C. humilis, have not been previously reported for Manitoba, but their distribution ranges fall very close to the province, and they grow in habitats that are present in southern Manitoba. The goal of this paper was to report the presence of C. magyarica and C. humilis in Manitoba representing range extensions for both species, and to show morphological differences among them and their close allies present in the same geographic locations. The morphological differences between C. magyarica and C. pyxidata include squamules inside the cup and a significantly taller podetium and wider cup diameter in C. magyarica than C. pyxidata. Cladonia magyarica also differs from C. pyxidata in possessing atranorin in addition to fumarprotocetraric acid, in every specimen we collected. Atranorin and fumarprotocetraric acid were also shown to be present in C. humilis, but C. humilis has soredia covering the podetium, which is not present in the aforementioned taxa.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvansiaSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207