A correction to “Error patterns in age estimation and tooth readability assignment of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) – results from a transatlantic, image-based blind-reading study using known-age animals”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frie, A. K., Hammill, M. O., Hauksson, E., Lind, Y., Lockyer, C., Stenman, O., and Svetocheva, O. 2013. A correction to: “Error patterns in age estimation and tooth readability assignment of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus): results from a transatlantic, image-based, blind-reading study using known-age animals” – ICES Journal of Marine Science The author wishes to update some values given in the article that were incorrect in the submitted version “Error patterns in age estimation and tooth readability assignment of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) – results from a transatlantic, image-based blind-reading study using known-age animals”, published in ICES Journal of Marine Science (2013), 70(2), 418–430. The errors occur on the lines listed below. These errors do not affect the conclusions of the work. In the abstract, the following sentence previously read: “Readers assigned readability scores to the tooth sections, and 79.1% of all ageing errors occurred in sections of low or intermediate readability.” This has been corrected to read: “Readers assigned readability scores to the tooth sections, and 65.4% of all ageing errors occurred in sections of low or intermediate readability.” In the final paragraph of the section “Longitudinal sections: reliability of readability scores” on p. 426, the following sentence previously read: “Of all readability assignments for this dataset, 78.3% were to the intermediate category and 11.0% were to the low category. These two readability categories combined accounted for 79.1% of all incorrect age estimates and 43.0% of all correct estimates for dataset 3.” This has been corrected to read: “Of all readability assignments for this dataset, 43.9% were to the intermediate category and 10.0% were to the low category. These two readability categories combined accounted for 65.4% of all incorrect age estimates and 43.0% of all correct estimates for dataset 3.” In the lower two panels of Figure 7, the percentage distributions for data sets 2 and 3 were mistakenly arranged in the opposite order to that indicated in the text.
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 | 0.007 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.062 |
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".