MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238574761 · doi:10.1086/715870

Retraction

2021· retraction· en· W4238574761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin Gilbert, Arthur E. Weis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2021
Typeretraction
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGallBiologyNatural selectionPredationEcologyNatural enemiesPopulationSelection (genetic algorithm)ZoologyDemographyArtificial intelligenceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous article FreeRetractionBenjamin Gilbert and Arthur E. WeisBenjamin GilbertDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S3B2, Canada Search for more articles by this author and Arthur E. WeisDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S3B2, Canada Search for more articles by this author Original articleIndirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food WebPDFPDF PLUSFull TextSupplemental Material Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe article “Indirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food Web,” published in the March 2019 issue (pp. 321–330) of The American Naturalist, is retracted by request of the authors of this statement. This article concerned the impact of a defoliating insect on the size and population density of a goldenrod stem gall and the subsequent influence of mature gall size on attack rates by the parasitoid wasps and predatory birds on the gall-making insect. The authors found several errors in their analyses and have provided a full reanalysis in an R code file.The main error occurred because observations that should have been excluded were accidentally retained, which biased the statistics on selection for gall size. Specifically, some gall-maker larvae die early in development, which not only halts gall growth but also removes those larvae from the pool of hosts/prey. Including such observations in the analysis distorts the relationship of natural enemy attack to mature gall size and the resulting influence of natural enemies on the selection of gall size. The authors’ previous studies of this relationship excluded such observations. Correcting this error in the current study yielded different selection gradients, such that linear selection no longer varied among treatments (interaction P>.1) but nonlinear selection did vary (interaction P<.05). Both of these changes to the statistical results altered inferences about the effects of indirect interactions on selection intensity.There were also two errors in the calculation of how treatment effects influence gall makers. When the density of galls was reanalyzed with a more appropriate error distribution, the difference among treatments changed to marginally significant (P=.086). Similarly, mortality by Eurytoma was erroneously reported as P<.001, and reanalysis showed it to be only marginally significant (P=.098).The extent of the altered results means that much of the discussion section in Start et al. is not valid. The authors of this statement are requesting a retraction of this article but plan to resubmit a thoroughly rewritten article that correctly reports and interprets the revised results. Previous article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 198, Number 4October 2021 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/715870 Views: 2663 HistorySubmitted June 04, 2021Published online August 12, 2021 © 2021 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.Related articlesIndirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food Web17 Jan 2019The American Naturalist

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207