Checklist of Rust Fungi (Basidiomycota, Pucciniales) and their hosts in Indiana, United States of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rust fungi (Pucciniales) comprise a large group of ecologically and economically important plant pathogens distributed globally where their hosts grow. The first published study of rusts in Indiana was carried out 131 years ago, and a revised checklist of all Pucciniales for Indiana has not been compiled since the works of Jackson from 1917 to 1920. Efforts to compile a checklist five years ago revealed a dire need for revision due to taxonomic and nomenclatural changes. We examined historical records, including online databases and literature, as well as new and historical collections in the Arthur Fungarium (PUR) at Purdue University. We provide an annotated checklist of all known species of rust fungi occurring in 90/92 Indiana counties. Names in prior records have been updated to reflect the current classifications for this group, with cross-reference to older names. A total of 301 Pucciniales taxa across 32 genera and their host species have been verified. This work serves as a resource for statewide plant disease diagnosticians and records the extant rust fungal biodiversity in Indiana to guide research efforts, resource management, and conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".