XI International Mycological Congress: report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals relating to fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Procedures, appointments and outcomes of the Fungal Nomenclature Session (FNS) of the 11th International Mycological Congress (IMC11) are summarized, including the composition of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau and the Nominating Committee of the IMC. Nearly 150 mycologists attended the FNS, at which formal proposals to amend Chapter F of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) were debated. The 18 proposals considered included 10 “from the floor”. Four proposals were withdrawn, two were sent to the Editorial Committee, five were sent to two Special-purpose Committees, four were rejected, and three were accepted (concerning: using the identifier in place of the author citation; mis-citation of identifiers; and indication of sanctioning). Proposals to amend Division III of the ICN were deemed out of scope of the FNS because they did not relate to Chapter F. The two Special-purpose Committees authorized were: “DNA Sequences as Types for Fungi” and “Names of Fungi with the Same Epithet”. Appointments made by the FNS included the Secretary of the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau for IMC12, and officers and members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Fungi. Decisions and appointments of the FNS were ratified in a resolution accepted by the plenary session of the Congress.
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 | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.016 |
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".