Editorial: Mycorrhizal fungi and plants in terrestrial ecosystems, volume II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1885, Frank reported a mutualistic symbiotic relationship between a fungus and its host in which both organisms nutritionally relied on each other (Frank & Trappe, 2005). He observed that mycorrhizal associations were widespread across a variety of habitats and soils, contrary to the general thinking of the nineteen centuries. This suggested that mycorrhizae play a substantial role in ecosystem diversity, functioning and stability. Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) associations are the most widespread among all types of mycorrhiza, estimated to involve more than 80% of all plant species. These associations are characterized by the formation of intercellular and intracellular hyphae, as well as specialised branching hyphae create two distinct structures: coils in Arum-type and arbuscules in Paris-type arbuscular mycorrhizae, in the root epidermis and cortical cells. In some species, vesicles or swollen hyphal structures may also develop, both intra- and extraradical hyhae. AM fungal spores of certain genera are found on both intraradical and extraradical hyphae, and auxiliary cells are sometimes produced in the extraradical mycelium of some species. All of these fungi belong to the phylum Glomeromycota. AM symbiosis is found in a variety of plants, from liverworts and ferns to conifers and angiosperms. However, there are some angiosperms that do not form AM symbiosis. Among these non-host species members of Brassicaceae are believed to be a non-host for arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF).
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.028 |
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".