Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous articleNext article FreeErratumOriginal articleVariations in Copepod Proteome and Respiration Rate in Association with Diel Vertical Migration and Circadian CycleFull TextPDF Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIn Maas, Amy E., Leocadio Blanco-Bercial, Ali Lo, Ann M. Tarrant, and Emma Timmins-Schiffman. 2018. Variations in copepod proteome and respiration rate in association with diel vertical migration and circadian cycle, Biol. Bull.235: 30–42, there is an error in the Methods of the protein search database. The Methods state that the Pleuromamma xiphias translated transcriptome was used as the protein search database, but the actual search database used was the translated transcriptome from Pleuromamma robusta, as described in Francis, W. R., L. M. Christianson, R. Kiko, M. L. Powers, N. C. Shaner, and S. H. D. Haddock. 2013. A comparison across non-model animals suggests an optimal sequencing depth for de novo transcriptome assembly, BMC Genomics14: 167, and is available upon reasonable request from R. Kiko or S. H. D. Haddock. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Biological Bulletin Volume 239, Number 3December 2020 Published in association with the Marine Biological Laboratory Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/711843 Views: 652 HistoryPublished online October 29, 2020 © 2020 The University of Chicago Crossref reports no articles citing this article.Related articlesVariations in Copepod Proteome and Respiration Rate in Association with Diel Vertical Migration and Circadian Cycle16 Aug 2018The Biological Bulletin
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.708 | 0.565 |
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".