Revision of root-associated microfungi of <i>Pinus wallichiana</i> in Kashmir Himalaya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi associated with roots of Pinus wallichiana A.B. Jackson were evaluated for the first time in the recently published study by Tyub et al. (2018, Can. J. For. Res. 48(8): 923–929, doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2018-0084 ). A culture-free approach using RFLP profiling and the sequencing analysis of DNA extracted from fine root tips was used to identify ectomycorrhizal and other species present in the roots; however, numerous inconsistences in the interpretation of presented results indicated that the names assigned to particular sequences were incorrect. Therefore, sequences belonging to ascomycete microfungi (predominantly members of Helotiales) obtained in the study were reanalyzed to confirm their identification. A simple phylogenetic analysis also utilizing closely related sequences from GenBank showed that the sequences from this study were mostly misidentified (i.e., placed in different clades than sequences having the same name but originating from taxonomic studies). Erroneous conclusions resulting from misidentified species and limited knowledge of relevant literature were corrected. Despite numerous inconsistences, the study of Tyub et al. (2018) brought valuable data about fungal diversity and potential taxonomic novelties among helotialean fungi associated with coniferous roots.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".