What are the 100 most cited fungal genera?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global diversity of fungi has been estimated between 2 to 11 million species, of which only about 155 000 have been named. Most fungi are invisible to the unaided eye, but they represent a major component of biodiversity on our planet, and play essential ecological roles, supporting life as we know it. Although approximately 20 000 fungal genera are presently recognised, the ecology of most remains undetermined. Despite all this diversity, the mycological community actively researches some fungal genera more commonly than others. This poses an interesting question: why have some fungal genera impacted mycology and related fields more than others? To address this issue, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to identify the top 100 most cited fungal genera. A thorough database search of the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed was performed to establish which genera are most cited. The most cited 10 genera are Saccharomyces, Candida, Aspergillus, Fusarium, Penicillium, Trichoderma, Botrytis, Pichia, Cryptococcus and Alternaria. Case studies are presented for the 100 most cited genera with general background, notes on their ecology and economic significance and important research advances. This paper provides a historic overview of scientific research of these genera and the prospect for further research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.079 | 0.120 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".