MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287831888 · doi:10.3390/jof8080773

Holarctic Species in the Pluteus romellii Clade. Five New Species Described and Old Names Reassessed

2022· article· en· W4287831888 on OpenAlexaff
Hana Ševčíková, Ekaterina Malysheva, GIULIANO FERISIN, Francesco Dovana, Egon Horak, Jacob Kalichman, Oğuzhan Kaygusuz, Renée Lebeuf, Guillermo Muñoz González, Andrew M. Minnis, Stephen Douglas Russell, Michal Sochor, Bálint Dima, Vladimír Antonín, Alfredo Justo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fungi · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersKomarov Botanical Institute, Russian Academy of SciencesHarvard University
KeywordsHolarcticBiologyCladeBasidiosporeTaxonomy (biology)BasidiomycotaZoologyBotanyPhylogeneticsGenusSpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the taxonomy of Pluteus romellii, and morphologically similar Holarctic species in the/romellii clade of section Celluloderma, using morphological and molecular data (nrITS, TEF1-α). Pluteus romellii is lectotypified and epitypified and accepted as an exclusively Eurasian species. Pluteus lutescens and P. pallescens are considered synonyms of P. romellii. Pluteus fulvibadius is accepted as a related, but separate, North American species. Five species in the/romellii clade are described as new to science: two from North America (P. austrofulvus and P. parvisporus), one from Asia (P. parvicarpus), one from Europe (P. siccus), and one widely distributed across the Holarctic region (P. vellingae). Basidioma size, pileus color, lamellae color, basidiospore size, hymenial cystidia shape and size, habitat and geographical distribution help separate the species described here, but in some instances only molecular data allows for confident identification. The current status of P. californicus, P. melleipes, P. romellii var. luteoalbus, P. splendidus, P. sternbergii and P. sulphureus is discussed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of FungiSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207