MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Elaphomyces species (Elaphomycetaceae, Eurotiales) from Bartlett Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA

2017· article· en· W2594582757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael A. Castellano, Ryan B. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueIMA Fungus · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNew Hampshire Agricultural Experiment StationUniversity of WyomingU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEcologyTsugaNearctic ecozoneGeographyBiologyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe five new species of Elaphomyces from Bartlett Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA ( E. americanus, E. bartlettii, E. macrosporus, E. oreoides , and E. remickii ) and revise the description of a sixth previously published species ( E. verruculosus) . Of the five new species, E. bartlettiii and E. remickii are only known from New Hampshire whereas E. americanus, E. macrosporus , and E. oreoides are widely distributed in eastern North America. Elaphomyces verruculosus is the most widespread and abundant Elaphomyces species in eastern North America with a distribution extending from eastern Canada south to northeastern Mexico. All six Elaphomyces species are putatively associated with Tsuga canadensis , a tree species in regional decline. For five of the six Elaphomyces species, we report partially consumed ascomata or rodent fecal samples containing spores, indicating that small mammals play a key role in dispersing these Elaphomyces species and that the Elaphomyces are an important part of the small mammals’ diet.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMA FungusSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207