MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220674812 · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04628-x

Author Correction: Late Quaternary dynamics of Arctic biota from ancient environmental genomics

2022· erratum· en· W4220674812 on OpenAlexaff
Yucheng Wang, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Inger Greve Alsos, Bianca De Sanctis, Fernando Racimo, Ana Prohaska, Éric Coissac, Hannah L. Owens, Marie Kristine Føreid Merkel, Antonio Fernàndez-Guerra, Alexandra Rouillard, Youri Lammers, Adriana Alberti, France Denœud, Daniel Money, Anthony Ruter, Hugh McColl, Nicolaj K. Larsen, Anna A. Cherezova, Mary E. Edwards, Grigory Fedorov, James Haile, Ludovic Orlando, Lasse Vinner, Thorfinn Sand Korneliussen, David W. Beilman, Anders Anker Bjørk, Jialu Cao, Christoph Dockter, Julie Esdale, Galina Gusarova, Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Jan Mangerud, Jeffrey T. Rasic, Birgitte Skadhauge, John Inge Svendsen, Alexei Tikhonov, Patrick Wincker, Yingchun Xing, Yubin Zhang, Duane Froese, Carsten Rahbek, Philip B. Holden, Neil R. Edwards, Richard Durbin, David J. Meltzer, Kurt H. Kjær, Per Möller, Eske Willerslev

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2022
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotaQuaternaryArcticThe arcticGenomicsOceanographyPaleontologyEcologyGeologyEarth scienceBiologyGenomeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the version of this article initially published, David Nogues Bravo’s name appeared incorrectly (David Bravo Nogues). Ref. 61 has also been updated to read "Wang, Y. et al. Supporting data for: Late Quaternary dynamics of Arctic biota revealed by ancient environmental metagenomics. https://doi.org/10.18710/3CVQAG , DataverseNO, V1 (2021)". The changes have been made to the HTML and PDF versions 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.035

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→