MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3203622519 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26291-y

Publisher Correction: Distinct patterns of within-host virus populations between two subgroups of human respiratory syncytial virus

2021· erratum· en· W3203622519 on OpenAlexaff
Gu-Lung Lin, Simon B. Drysdale, Matthew D. Snape, Daniel O’Connor, Anthony Brown, George MacIntyre-Cockett, Esther Mellado-Gomez, Mariateresa de Cesare, David Bonsall, M. Azim Ansari, Deniz Öner, Jeroen Aerssens, Christopher Butler, Louis Bont, Peter Openshaw, Federico Martinón‐Torres, Harish Nair, Rory Bowden, Harry Campbell, Steve Cunningham, Debby Bogaert, Philippe Beutels, Joanne Wildenbeest, Elizabeth Clutterbuck, Joseph McGinley, Ryan S. Thwaites, Dexter Wiseman, Alberto Gómez‐Carballa, Carmen Rodrı́guez-Tenreiro, Irene Rivero‐Calle, Ana Dacosta-Urbieta, Terho Heikkinen, Adam Meijer, Thea Kølsen Fischer, Maarten van den Berge, Carlo Giaquinto, Michael E. Abram, Philip R. Dormitzer, Sonia Stoszek, Scott Gallichan, Brian Rosen, Eva Molero, Núria Machín, Martina Spadetto, Tanya Golubchik, Andrew J. Pollard

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHost (biology)VirusVirologyComputer scienceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original HTML version of this Article contained errors in the author affiliations, which were correct in the PDF version. Specifically, affiliations after number 14 in the PDF version were displaying incorrectly in the online version of the paper. This has been updated so that all affiliations are accurate in the HTML version of the Article.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.021

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Communications→Same topicRespiratory viral infections research→French-language works237,207→