Bibliographic record
Abstract
We wish to bring readers attention to the following corrections to Ally et al. (2008). In Table 2, Clone 24-1 not Clone 25-1b has a somatic mutation at the microsatellite locus W17. The alleles remain unchanged. Clone 25-1b had no somatic mutations, and only two ramets were sampled for this clone. As it was below our threshold of 5 ramets, it was not included in any of the statistical analyses. We calculated statistics based on the presence of an outlier with a πk = 0.079; however, this clone’s molecular divergence is πk = 0.034. These values do not change the overall pattern in the data, instead, they simply alter values reported in the text. The lower-bound estimate of the mutation rate using the clone exhibiting the largest amount of genetic diversity is μlower = 0.034/(4 × 10000) = 8.4 × 10−7per locus per year. Among clones with non-zero estimates, using TCCA = πk/(4μlower), clone age ranged from 415 to 10 000 years. The average clone age was estimated to be 3680 (SE = 627) years. As the upper-bound estimate of the mutation rate did not include the clone with the greatest divergence, this value remains at 2.3 × 10−5 per locus per year. In Fig. 1 and Table 1, the correct statistical values are reported here along with the revised figure and table. A comparison of two different growth models for Red Rock (solid circles) and Riske Creek (open circles). (a) Assuming a constant population size with continual ramet turn-over, the slope of πk versus should exhibit a 1:1 relationship (dashed). The observed line (solid) had a significantly lower slope of 0.376 ± 0.084 (F1,25 = 20.08, P-value: 0.00014, R2 = 0.445). (b) Assuming a growing population size, the slope of πk vs. should exhibit a 1:1 relationship (dashed). The observed line (solid) had a slope of 0.893± 0.18 (F1,25 = 23.68, P-value: 5.26 × 10−5, R2 = 0.48), which did not differ significantly from the expectation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.395 | 0.318 |
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".