Corrigendum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been drawn to our attention that Fig. 1a,c,d in Mougeot et al. (2010a) appears to show the same data as Fig. 1a,d,e in a paper published by (some of) the same authors in Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Mougeot et al., 2010b). The authors wish to clarify the relationship between these two papers and rectify the lack of cross-referencing. Both papers focus on red grouse and are outputs from the same large-scale field manipulation undertaken in 2006. They represent two, very different, stand-alone studies addressing different conceptual issues. The central experimental manipulation of both papers is the drug treatment of birds. The authors felt it was necessary to include background data in each paper to give the reader confidence in the efficacy of the experimental treatment and to allow the reader to better understand and interpret the main results of the papers, which explore very different physiological mechanisms that influence ornamental colouration. For this reason, the treatment effects on parasite burden and comb colouration were presented in both papers, although a different index of comb redness was used [adjusted R-values (Fig. 1e in J. Evol. Biol.) vs. adjusted R/(G + B) values (Fig. 1c in J. Exp. Biol.)]. Both indices are accurate reflections of comb redness, gave similar results and have been used in previous studies in different contexts to characterize comb colour. Both papers also include the same data on levels of circulating carotenoids [Fig. 1d in J. Exp. Biol.; Fig. 1d in J. Evol. Biol.]. The authors feel the inclusion of these data in both papers can be justified conceptually. In the J. Exp. Biol. paper, the trade-off between the use of carotenoids for colouring ornaments vs. dealing with oxidative stress is central to the key question. In the J. Evol. Biol. paper, these data reinforce the argument that carotenoid levels and ornamental colouration covary with corticosterone levels. The reiteration of background data on parasite removal and carotenoid levels does not compromise the uniqueness of each paper. The papers were submitted to, and published by, the respective journals in parallel, and the absence of cross-referencing was an oversight on the part of the authors, who acknowledge that the figure legends should have cited the corresponding paper and that the different indices used for comb redness should have been clarified. The paper by Mougeot et al. (2010a) should have been cited and referenced in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology article (Mougeot et al., 2010b), and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.
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 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.441 | 0.345 |
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".