MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112985642 · doi:10.3114/fuse.2021.07.06

Eight new<i> Elaphomyces</i> species (<i>Elaphomycetaceae, Eurotiales, Ascomycota</i>) from eastern North America

2020· article· en· W3112985642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
MA Castellano, Christopher D. Crabtree, D. Mitchell, Rosanne Healy

Bibliographic record

VenueFungal Systematics and Evolution · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonGeographyGenusHabitatAscomycotaEcologyBiodiversityBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hypogeous, sequestrate ascomycete genus Elaphomyces is one of the oldest known truffle-like genera. Elaphomyces has a long history of consumption by animals in Europe and was formally described by Nees von Esenbeck in 1820 from Europe. Until recently most Elaphomyces specimens in North America were assigned names of European taxa due to lack of specialists working on this group and difficulty of using pre-modern species descriptions. It has recently been discovered that North America has a rich diversity of Elaphomyces species far beyond the four Elaphomyces species described from North America prior to 2012. We describe eight new Elaphomyces species ( E. dalemurphyi, E. dunlapii, E. holtsii , E. lougehrigii , E. miketroutii , E. roodyi, E. stevemilleri and E. wazhazhensis ) of eastern North America that were collected in habitats from Quebec, Canada south to Florida, USA, west to Texas and Iowa. The ranges of these species vary and with continued sampling may prove to be larger than we have established. Castellano has studied authentic material of all European Elaphomyces species published through 2016 and it is interesting to note that many Elaphomyces species from eastern North America have morphological similarities but with distinct morphological differences to a number of European Elaphomyces species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFungal Systematics and EvolutionSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207