Erratum to: Palaeoenvironmental drivers of vertebrate community composition in the Belly River Group (Campanian) of Alberta, Canada, with implications for dinosaur biogeography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After publication of the original article [1], it was brought to our attention that the phrase 'a lack of sensitivity to subtle environmental gradients casts doubt on these forces acting as a driver of putative endemism of dinosaur populations in the Late Cretaceous of North America' in "Conclusion" section should read 'a lack of sensitivity to subtle environmental gradients casts doubt on these forces acting as a driver of altitudinal zonation of dinosaur communities in the Late Cretaceous of North America' .The phrase 'this hypothesis is based on the resilience to environmental variation and broad latitudinal distributions seen in many groups of large mammals today [2, 7, 32], though it is at odds with much of the literature on dinosaur environmental associations [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 42, 43, 62]' in "Background" section should read 'although it is frequently hypothesized that large dinosaurs are sensitive to environmental variation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 42, 43, 62], many groups of large mammals today are resilient to environmental variation and have broad latitudinal distributions [2, 7, 32]' .The phrase 'the ability to test hypotheses about dinosaur biogeography, endemism, and environmental
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.019 |
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".