MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623290333 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0037

Interface between fungi and green algae in lichen associations

2017· article· en· W2623290333 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michele D. Piercey‐Normore, Sarangi N.P. Athukorala

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThallusLichenBiologyAlgaeFungusSymbiosisBotanyInterface (matter)EcologyBacteriaPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely recognized that the lichen is the product of a fungus and a photosynthetic partner (green alga or cyanobacterium), but its acceptance was slow to develop throughout history. The development of powerful microscopic and other lab techniques enabled better understanding of the interface between symbionts, beginning with the contentious concept of the dual nature of the lichen thallus. Even with accelerating progress in understanding the interface between symbionts, much more work is needed to reach a level of knowledge consistent with that of other fungal interactions. This minireview describes the interface between algal and fungal symbionts in lichens, including the appearance of interacting symbionts, our current understanding of communication between symbionts, and emerging new concepts in light of the challenges and debates that have provided lichenology with an enriched history. Communication between symbionts occurs before physical contact, which has been studied through microscopy, movement of molecules between symbionts, and gene expression studies. New discoveries include the interaction with more than one alga in a lichen thallus as well as other unrelated fungi and bacteria typically found on or within the thallus. This minireview briefly describes our current state of knowledge and highlights new directions for further study.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.266
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 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207