MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774756471 · doi:10.12705/666.10

Response to Pitt &amp; Taylor 2016: Conservation of <i>Aspergillus</i> with <i>A. niger</i> as the conserved type is unnecessary and potentially disruptive

2017· article· en· W2774756471 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Samson, Vít Hubka, János Varga, Jos Houbraken, Seung‐Beom Hong, Corné H. W. Klaassen, Giancarlo Perrone, Keith A. Seifert, Donato Magistà, Cobus M. Visagie, Sándor Kocsubé́, G. Szigeti, Takashi Yaguchi, Stephen W. Peterson, Jens C. Frisvad

Bibliographic record

VenueTaxon · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversity of PittsburghU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAspergillusAspergillus nigerBiologyTaxonomy (biology)NomenclatureType (biology)GenusAspergillus flavusType speciesZoologyEcologyBotanyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aspergillus is a diverse fungal genus containing many species of great agricultural, biotechnological and medical relevance. Because of the broad use of the genus name in diverse disciplines, and the importance of individual species names in these areas, the taxonomy and nomenclature of Aspergillus should remain stable. A formal proposal to change the generic type from A. glaucus to A. niger was recently published. Here we present arguments against this proposal. We assert that it should be rejected because it will not ensure nomenclatural stability for Aspergillus , and will put the names of several important species, such as A. flavus , A. fumigatus and A. oryzae at risk of being classified in different genera and being lost.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0310.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.019

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaxonSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207