The lichen genus <i>Rinodina</i> (Physciaceae) in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifteen species of the crustose lichen genus Rinodina are confirmed in New Brunswick, Canada. We report four corticolous species, Rinodina pachysperma, Rinodina populicola, Rinodina septentrionalis, and Rinodina tenuis, and the saxicolous Rinodina tephraspis in the province for the first time. A previous report of Rinodina granuligera is based on a specimen that we have re-identified as Rinodina cinereovirens. We note distinguishing characteristics, habitats, substrata, relative abundance, and biogeographic relationships of each species and provide an identification key and distribution maps. The most frequently occupied phorophytes (tree substrata) are Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Some species are closely associated with particular habitats, phorophytes, or both. For example, we found R. pachysperma only in floodplain forests dominated by Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), and R. tenuis only on Eastern White Cedar in wet cedar-dominated stands. In contrast, we recorded Rinodina freyi on numerous phorophyte species in a relatively wide range of habitats. Other than Eastern White Cedar and Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea), conifers are rarely colonized by Rinodina species in New Brunswick. Most Rinodina species are probably not currently of conservation concern in the province. However, R. cinereovirens is known from only two collections, one dating from 1902. The other, from 2007, was on Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra) in a swamp forest next to an active peat-mining operation. The expected devastation of ash species by the invasive Emerald Ash-borer (Agrilus planipennis) is a further threat to this occurrence and to any lichens for which ash may be an important phorophyte.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".