MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281745720 · doi:10.3390/jof8060623

Pluteus insidiosus Complex, Four New Species Described and Pluteus reisneri Resurrected

2022· article· en· W4281745720 on OpenAlexaff
Hana Ševčíková, GIULIANO FERISIN, Ekaterina Malysheva, Alfredo Justo, Jacob Heilmann‐Clausen, Egon Horak, L. B. Kalinina, Oğuzhan Kaygusuz, Henning Knudsen, Nelson Menolli, Pierre‐Arthur Moreau, Guillermo Muñoz González, Irja Saar, İbrahim Türkekul, Francesco Dovana

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersRussian Academy of SciencesKomarov Botanical Institute, Russian Academy of SciencesEesti Teadusagentuur
KeywordsBiologySensuTaxonCladeTaxonomy (biology)ZoologySpecies complexLineage (genetic)Molecular phylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsSensu strictoPhylogenetic treeBotanyGenusGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the taxonomy of Pluteus insidiosus and similar species using morphological and molecular (nrITS, TEF1-α) data, including a detailed study of the type collection of P. insidiosus. Based on our results, we recognize five species in this group: P. insidiosus sensu stricto and four other taxa: P. assimilatus; P. farensis; P. flavostipitatus; and P. pseudoinsidiosus; described here as new. All these taxa are distinct from each other based on molecular data, but some of them are semi-cryptic based on morphology and co-occur in the Palaearctic region. An additional molecular lineage, phylogenetically separates from the P. insidiosus complex, but with many morphological similarities, was recognized in the molecular phylogenies. Based on the revision of available type collections, the name Pluteus reisneri Velen., was adopted for this Clade. Pluteus reisneri was validly published in 1921, but it has barely been used since its original description. A modern epitype, with molecular data, was selected for P. reisneri.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of FungiSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207