Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhizoctonia pennata (Currah) R.P. O’Donnell, C.C. Linde & T.W. May, comb. nov. MB 852073. Basionym: Thanatephorus pennatus Currah, Canad. J. Bot. 65 (9): 1958. 1987. Type citation: ‘ TYPUS: cultura exsiccata “ UAMH 5405,” ex radicis Calypso bulbosa, Albertiensis. ’ [‘TYPE: dried culture “UAMH 5405,” from the roots of Calypso bulbosa, from Alberta.’]. ITS barcode: EU218892 (T). UNITE 1.5 % SH: SH0814614.10FU. Ex-type culture: ATCC 64683 (= UAMH 5405). Notes: Roberts (1999) considered Thanatephorus pennatus a synonym of Th. ochraceus; however, the publicly-available ‘type’ sequence attributed to Th. ochraceous by Taylor & McCormick (2008) was actually sequenced from the holotype of Th. pennatus. Coniophora ochracea (the basionym of Th. ochraceus) was described from decaying elm bark in England, while Th. pennatus was isolated from roots of the orchid Calypso bulbosa collected from Alberta, Canada. Donk (1958) and Roberts (1999) also note that the type specimen for Coniophora ochracea is apparently lost. Given the differences in type locality and host substrate between Th. pennatus and Th. ochraceus, along with the fact that the true type specimen for Th. ochraceus is lost, it would appear prudent to treat Th. pennatus and Th. ochraceus as separate from one another. Consequently, we have here chosen to resurrect the name Th. pennatus as Rhizoctonia pennata.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".