Leuconeurospora pulcherrima Malloch & Cain, Can. J. Bot.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3. Leuconeurospora pulcherrima (G. Winter) Malloch & Cain, Can. J. Bot. 48(10): 1820 (1970) (Plate 1, Figs. 7–9) Ascomata non-ostiolate, scattered, immersed to superficial, globose, black at reflected light, dark red at transmitted light, 160–210 μm diam., glabrous. Peridium cephalothecoid, coriaceous, opaque, composed of large, polygonal plates consisting of flattened, angular (textura angularis), thick-walled, reddish-brown cells, 7.5–22.5 μm wide at the larger axis, separated by well-defined dehiscence lines. Asci 4-spored, globose to slightly clavate, 9–11.5 μm diam., evanescent. Ascospores 1-celled, mainly ellipsoid, but considerably variable in morphology, rhomboid to doliiform, ornamented by conspicuous, anastomosing ridges, forming an incomplete reticulum, hyaline, 6–10 × 3–5 μm, lacking germ pores. Material examined:— BRAZIL. Pernambuco, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, on goat dung, 04 Apr 2012, R. F. R. Melo (URM 86786!). Habitat: —Dung of dog, fox, hedgehog, rabbit, rat and squirrel. Distribution:— Europe (Denmark, Greece) and North America (Canada). This is the first record of this species in Brazil. Notes: — Leuconeurospora pulcherrima can be distinguished from other cleistothecial, hyaline-spored coprophilous fungi by the dark red ascomata with cephalothecoid wall and by the reticulated ornamentation pattern on the ascospores. Numerous obovoid to pyriform chlamydospores were observed in this material.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.014 | 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".