MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408217806 · doi:10.3897/mycokeys.114.139257

Annotated checklist of arthropod-pathogenic species in the Entomophthoromycotina (Fungi, Zoopagomycota) in North America

2025· article· en· W4408217806 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann E. Hajek, Kelsey L. Scott, Sergio R. Sánchez-Peña, C. Tkaczuk, Brian Lovett, Kathryn E. Bushley

Bibliographic record

VenueMycoKeys · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistBiodiversityBiologyTaxonomy (biology)ArthropodEcologyZoologyHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subphylum Entomophthoromycotina (Phylum Zoopagomycota) includes many arthropod pathogens, some of which are renowned for their abilities to alter host behavior prior to death and cause epizootics that impact host populations. The last checklist of arthropod-pathogenic species in this group was published in 1963 and consisted of 39 species in a single genus. Since then, more species have been named, and their taxonomy has changed extensively. We have constructed an updated checklist for species of Entomophthoromycotina in North America; this checklist includes species in the continental United States, Canada, and Mexico. Data were compiled based on available published literature and metadata available from the ARSEF culture collection, adjusting names based on current taxonomy. In North America, the arthropod-pathogenic Entomophthoromycotina now include 80 species belonging to 14 genera, within two classes, plus one species in a form genus. This checklist provides a current framework for future studies of the biodiversity of this group of fungi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMycoKeysSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207