MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3088042883 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb66e

Erratum: “Far-infrared to Millimeter Data of Protoplanetary Disks: Dust Growth in the Taurus, Ophiuchus, and Chamaeleon I Star-forming Regions” (2017, ApJ, 849, 63)

2020· erratum· en· W3088042883 on OpenAlexaff
Álvaro Ribas, Catherine Espaillat, Enrique Macías, H. Bouy, Sean M. Andrews, Nuria Calvet, David A. Naylor, P. Riviére-Marichalar, M. H. D. van der Wiel, David J. Wilner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOphiuchusPhysicsMillimeterAstrophysicsAstronomyFar infraredStar formationStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supporting material: tar.gz files, machine-readable table Three ChamaeleonI sources (Hn11, T45a, and WYCha) were mislabeled in the published article, which resulted in their names, stellar parameters, extinction values, infrared slopes, and silicate feature properties being assigned to incorrect coordinates.Because the photometry and spectroscopy presented in the published article are coordinate-based, the provided spectral energy distributions and spectra were also mislabeled: the data files labeled Hn11 in the published article correspond to T45a, those labeled T45a correspond to WYCha, and those labeled WYCha correspond to Hn11.The only error in the text of the published article is in Table 15, in which the Herschel photometry of WYCha was wrongly attributed to T45a.The corrected entry in Table 15 is presented here.Additionally, due to a mislabeling issue in Manoj et al. (2011), the source labeled UXCha is actually CHSM 8284.Therefore, stellar parameters and photometry labeled UX Cha in our published article correspond to CHSM 8284.These issues have been corrected in the machinereadable table of Table 15 and the online data products seds.tar.gz and irs.tar.gz(spire.tar.gzremains unchanged), as well as in the Zenodo repository (doi:10.5281/zenodo.889053).The results and conclusions of the published article are not affected.We thank Dr. Claire Davies for bringing this issue to our attention

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.065

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→