MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989570429 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2019-0118

<i>Ophiobolus hydei</i> sp. nov. (Phaeosphaeriaceae, Ascomycota) from <i>Cirsium</i> and <i>Phlomoides</i> in Uzbekistan

2019· article· en· W2989570429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yusufjon Gafforov, Rungtiwa Phookamsak, Hong-Bo Jiang, Dhanushka N. Wanasinghe, Mukhiddin Juliev

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscocarpBiologyAscomycotaBotanyDothideomycetesPhylogenetic treeLichenTaxonomy (biology)Marine fungiGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new fungal species, Ophiobolus hydei, from dead stems of Cirsium alatum (Compositae) and Phlomoides brachystegia (Lamiaceae), based on morphological and phylogenetic evidence. The species was collected from the Mountains of Western Tien Shan and southwestern Hissar in Uzbekistan. Ophiobolus hydei is characterized by globose to subglobose ascomata with short to long papilla, cylindrical to subcylindric-clavate asci, broad pseudoparaphyses, and scolecosporous, yellowish-brown to brown, filiform, multiseptate ascospores that can split into several part-spores at the septa. Multigene phylogenetic analyses using a combined gene analysis of ITS, LSU, SSU, and TEF1-α indicated that the new species has a close affinity to Ophiobolus ponticus, but differs from that species in the micromorphological characteristics of the ascomata, asci, and ascospores, as well as biogeographic distribution. A distribution map, morphological descriptions, and illustrations with colour photographs of the novel species are provided.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207