Corrigendum: A multigenerational effect of parental age on offspring size but not fitness in common duckweed (<i>Lemna minor</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors originally identified the strain of duckweed studied in Barks and Laird () as Lemna minor. Subsequent DNA barcoding demonstrated that it was in fact Lemna turionifera (see Supplementary Appendix S2 in Barks et al.). The two species are difficult to distinguish based on morphology (Landolt, p. 275). This change is consistent with recently altered reports issued by the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (http://abmi.ca/) regarding the presence of Lemna species in Alberta, Canada. The GenBank sequences associated with the strain (‘Water Building A’) used in Barks and Laird () are MG000422 (atpF-atpH marker) and MG000496 (psbK-psbI marker). This change in species identification from L. minor to L. turionifera also affects Barks () thesis chapters 3 and 5 (the other chapters have correct species identifications except when referring to chapters 3 and 5). This change does not affect Barks and Laird (). That study used strain ‘CPCC 492’ from the Canadian Phycological Culture Centre. It was originally identified as L. minor, and subsequent DNA barcoding confirmed this identification (see Appendix S2 in Barks et al.). The hypotheses tested and the conclusions drawn are unchanged and apply equally well to L. turionifera as they did to L. minor. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused by this error. Correspondence: Patrick M. Barks, Department of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark. e-mail: patrick.barks@gmail.com.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".