Erratum to “A Perspective on Stratigraphic, Vertically-Upward “Displacements or Dislocations” of Conodont-Elements: An Example From the Upper Devonian, Pre-Lithified, Black Shales of the Chattanooga Shale Formation In Tennessee, USA” ...
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though the author already incorporated the citation of Sinninghe-Damste & Schouten (2006) into the text of the paper, the author regrets having failed to include their full citation within the Reference Section of my above paper which is: Sinninghe-Damste, J. S. & Schouton, S. (2006). Biological markers for anoxia in the photic zone of the water column. In, Volkman, J. K. (ed.), Marine Organic Matter: Biomarkers, Isotopes and DNA, (pp. 127 – 163). The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol. 2N. Springer: Berlin and Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2_005 The author also needs to paraphrase a statement made in the last three lines of the 2nd paragraph on page 40 where it reads as: “Thus, we may conclude here that paleo-upfreezing of any conodont-element(s) originally buried in the pre-lithified, light-colored shale occurred in order to account for their presence in black shale”. Instead, in lieu of that statement, it should read as “At this point in time of the study, we may tentatively conclude here while completely concluding later in the study, that conodont-elements originally existing in the underlying, pre-lithified, light-colored shale, had to paleo-upfreeze vertically upward into pre-lithified, black shale sediment in order to account for their presence in lithified black shale”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.014 |
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".