MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108638724 · doi:10.5878/zf1c-vz95

Data for: Impacts of large herbivores on mycorrhizal fungal communities across the Arctic

2025· dataset· en· W7108638724 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSwedish National Data Service · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersVetenskapsrådetAcademy of FinlandNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHerbivoreExclosureGuildGlomeromycotaArcticDNA sequencingEcosystemMycorrhizal fungi

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data deposited in association with article to be published in the journal: Ecography. Fungal DNA was extracted from soil samples collected at herbivore exclosure experiments in 15 sites around the Arctic to evaluate the impact of large mammalian herbivores on mycorrhizal fungal communities. The data includes DNA sequence reads amplified using ITS1m-LR5 and SSU515fngs-AML2 long-read primer pairs targeting general fungal sequences and arbuscular mycorrhizae, respectively. Sequences were taxonomically assigned through the UNITE database using PlutoF, and the MaarjAM database and assigned to fungal guild using FUNguild. The pipeline from trimmed, demultiplexed sequence reads to taxonomic and functional assignment is included in the Rscript "EcographySubmission_SynthesisScript.R". Soil properties, date of exclosure establishment, and general metadata is included in the file "MetaData.csv", and percent plant functional type cover is included for 11 sites in the file "Cover_data.csv". Raw sequence reads were deposited in the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the title "Impacts of large herbivores on mycorrhizal fungal communities across the Arctic".

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.046

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwedish National Data ServiceFrench-language works237,207