The Canadian Fungal Research Network: current challenges and future opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi critically impact the health and function of global ecosystems and economies. In Canada, fungal researchers often work within silos defined by subdiscipline and institutional type, complicating the collaborations necessary to understand the impacts fungi have on the environment, economy, and plant and animal health. Here, we announce the establishment of the Canadian Fungal Research Network (CanFunNet, https://fungalresearch.ca ), whose mission is to strengthen and promote fungal research in Canada by facilitating dialogue among scientists. We summarize the challenges and opportunities for Canadian fungal research that were discussed at CanFunNet’s inaugural meeting in 2019, and identify 4 priorities for our community: (i) increasing collaboration among scientists, (ii) studying diversity in the context of ecological disturbance, (iii) preserving culture collections in the absence of sustained funding, and (iv) leveraging diverse expertise to attract trainees. We have gathered additional information to support our recommendations, including a survey identifying underrepresentation of fungal-related courses at Canadian universities, a list of Canadian fungaria and culture collections, and a case study of a human fungal pathogen outbreak. We anticipate that these discussions will help prioritize fungal research in Canada, and we welcome all researchers to join this nationwide effort to enhance knowledge dissemination and funding advocacy.
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 | 0.065 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.007 |
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".