<i>Leptorhaphis epidermidis</i> . [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A description is provided for Leptorhaphis epidermidis . Some information on its dispersal and transmission and conservation status is given, along with details of its geographical distribution (Morocco, Canada (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Quebec), USA (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Vermont), India (Tamil Nadu), Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia (Altai Krai, Altai Republic, Kemerovo Oblast, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Novosibirsk Oblast, Republic of Khakassia, Tomsk Oblast, Tuva Republic, Yakutia and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Oblast), former USSR, New Zealand, United States Virgin Islands, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Irish Republic, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia (Arkhangelsk Oblast, Chuvash Republic, Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Republic of Dagestan, Republic of Karelia, Republic of Tatarstan and Tver Oblast), Slovakia, Spain, sSweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and UK), hosts ( Betula pubescens, Acer saccharinum, Acer sp., Betula alleghaniensis, B. papyrifera, B. pendula, B. populifolia, B. pubescens var. glabrata, Betula sp., Carya aquatica, Carya sp., Fraxinus nigra, Ilex decidua, Pinus strobiformis, Platanus racemosa, Populus alba, Populus tremula, Populus sp., Salix nigra, Tecoma sp. and Viburnum sp.) and associated organisms ( Lecania naegelii, Lecanora hagenii, Scoliciosporum sarothamni and Trentepohlia sp.).
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) | 0.006 | 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".