Ten Pressing Questions (and Answers) About Marine Fungi and Opportunities for Collaborations in the Ocean Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly 200 years have passed since the first marine fungus, collected from the shores of North Africa, was described. In that time, marine mycologists have continued to observe, describe, and study fungi in every marine ecosystem examined. Nevertheless, fungi remain functionally “dark matter” of the ocean, presenting a grand opportunity to unravel their roles in ecosystem processes. This report outlines the discussion among participants of the second occasional meeting of marine mycologists at Asilomar, California, in March 2024, in which a diverse and interdisciplinary consortium of researchers enumerated the most pressing, and often basic, unanswered questions in marine fungi. We report on the questions facing the field of marine mycology, identify challenges in addressing those questions, and propose concrete and practical solutions for obtaining their answers. A common thread is the need for increasing cross talk and collaboration between mycologists and oceanographers that would present opportunities for readers to participate in a rapidly growing field.
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 | 0.065 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".