Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Erratum relates to the following article: E. Fuglei & A. Tarroux. Arctic fox dispersal from Svalbard to Canada: one female’s long run across sea ice. Polar Research 2019, 38, 3512, http://dx.doi.org/10.33265/polar.v38.3512 The following error requires a correction in the above referenced article (page 4, left column, second paragraph): “When travelling on sea ice, her average movement rate was 34.0 km/day (95% confidence interval = 16.5–51.5) (Fig. 3), suggesting that sea ice was used predominantly as a platform for dispersal, rather than as a foraging habitat.” This has now been changed to read as follows: “Her average movement rate was higher by 34.0 km/day (95% CI: 16.5–51.5) when travelling on sea ice than when travelling on land (Fig. 3), suggesting that sea ice was used predominantly as a platform for dispersal, rather than as a foraging habitat.” This correction does not change the interpretation of the results. The editorial office regrets the error.
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 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.270 | 0.193 |
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".