Ten Pressing Questions (and Answers) About Marine Fungi and Opportunities for Collaborations in the Ocean Sciences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it