New Records of Fungi and Slime Moulds at Kings Park, Perth, Western Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field surveys were conducted in 2009 and 2010 to assess the biodiversity of fungi and slime moulds at Kings Park, a major urban bushland and botanic garden located 1.5 km from central Perth in Western Australia.A total of 124 fungi and 14 slime moulds were identified to species level or assigned species phrase names from the surveys.Only 21% of them were recorded in both of the surveys.Seventy six percent of the fungi (94 of 124) and 86% of the slime moulds (12 of 14) from the 2009-2010 surveys are considered to be new records for Kings Park.Seven of the fungal species had not been recorded before in Western Australia.To date, 168 fungi and 26 slime moulds have been identified to species level from Kings Park.The total number of fungi and slime mould species known from Kings Park to date is undoubtedly much greater.Many unidentified or possibly inaccurately identified records of fungi and slime moulds from Kings Park remain to be verified.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".