MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185758665 · doi:10.1079/dfb/20193504674

<i>Saccobolus truncatus</i> . [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria].

2019· article· en· W3185758665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. W. Minter, P. F. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueDescriptions of Fungi and Bacteria · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyChinaEnvironmental protectionForestryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A description is provided for Saccobolus truncatus . Almost all records of this species are on dung of herbivorous mammals, but the type material was stated to be on raven droppings, and there are also records on mushroom compost and a mushroom-growing bed and pig dung. Some information on its habitat, dispersal and transmission, and conservation status is given, along with details of its geographical distribution (Africa (Kenya, Morocco), North America (Canada (Manitoba, Ontario), USA (Colorado, Florida, New York, Virginia)), South America (Argentina, Brazil (Mato Grosso do Sul, Pernambuco), Chile, Peru), Asia (Armenia, China (Beijing, Yunnan), India (Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand), Israel, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand), Atlantic Ocean (Spain (Canary Islands)), Caribbean (Dominica, Guadeloupe, Puerto Rico, Saba (Caribbean Netherlands), St Lucia), Europe (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Germany, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Russia (Kursk Oblast, Leningrad Oblast, Republic of Mordovia), Ukraine, UK)). The present species has been included in studies of wheat straw lignin and cellulose modification by fungal colonists of herbivore dung, to explore the possibility that their anticipated ability to decompose lignocellulosic residues could be used to upgrade the nutritional value of animal feed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDescriptions of Fungi and BacteriaSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207