Bibliographic record
Abstract
We began with the intention of monographing Chalara and very similar fungi ( Excioconidium , etc.). We soon extended the scope of our study to encompass those dimorphic imperfect genera with Chalara -like phialides ( Thielaviopsis , Chalaropsis , Stilbochalam , Hughesiella ), then to cover two other genera with Chalara -like phialides but having characteristic ancillary sterile structures ( Chaetochalara , Sporoschisma ). Finally we considered several other genera with phialides having more or less cylindrical collarettes and deep-seated conidiogenous loci ( Bloxamia , Endosporostilbe , Ascoconidium , Sporendocladia ) or whose descriptions raised the suspicion that they had such attributes ( Endoconidium , Columnophora , Milowia ). To have extended the study further would have meant including phialidic genera which, although often having relatively deep collarettes, were otherwise not particularly morphologically comparable to Chalara ( Catenularia , Phialophora , Phialocephala , Sporoschismopsis ). Our study, which began as an attempt to revise one genus, thus finished up by considering fifteen existing generic names (five reduced to synonymy, one to the status of nomen dubium ) and adding one additional generic name (first published elsewhere). Readers will find in the taxonomic part of this book a compilation of descriptions and illustrations of species of Sporoschisma and Fusichalara . Some may consider these redundant, especially since we have added nothing significantly new to what is already known about them: our purpose in including them is solely to bring together all taxonomic data relating to Chalara and other closely allied genera in a single source-book.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.019 |
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".