Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saprobic; growing on decaying hardwood logs or standing dead trees, especially oak and maple. Growing year-round but usually preferring cooler temperatures, this fungus can be found in many areas of the world, including the United States, Canada, Japan, China, Korea and Russia. Fruiting bodies grow resupinate in the cracks of the wood they inhabit. No distinguishable cap, stem, or gills. Individual teeth are short, thin, and string-like appearing as light-tan to brown and usually occur in dense clusters. Individual teeth are approximately 1-2 cm long, but densely packed clusters can grow to 30 cm or more. COMMENTS: Distribution of this fungus is not well understood as it was only reported in the United States in 2009 (Roehl 2019) . Which region this fungus occurs in has not been well studied and future research is needed to properly understand its distribution. This species was once considered in the genera Radulodon but is now placed in Radulomyces (Nakasone 2001). - common name Asian beauty. ID number: 27.37.01.2021
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".