Bibliographic record
Abstract
EvolutionVolume 66, Issue 3 p. 945-945 Free Access Correction for Maughan 2007 This article corrects the following: RATES OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION IN BACTERIA ARE RELATIVELY CONSTANT DESPITE SPORE DORMANCY Heather Maughan, Volume 61Issue 2Evolution pages: 280-288 First Published online: February 6, 2007 First published: 09 February 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01575.xCitations: 3AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The author of Maughan 2007 wishes to correct two errors in the published version of Table 4. The substitution rates listed should be indicated as percentages, and the average value calculated from data in Ochman and Wilson (1987) should have used only the number of nonsynonymous sites for the denominator, rather than the total number of sites (nonsynonymous and synonymous). The revised version of Table 4 is as follows: Table 4. Average rate of amino acid substitution (percent substitutions per site per 50 million years). Dataset Amino acid (95% CI) This paper: Root = 3.5 bya1 0.96 (0.49 – 1.4) This paper: Root = 3.0 bya1 1.12 (0.57 – 1.67) This paper: Root = 2.5 bya1 1.35 (0.69 – 2.0) Ochman and Wilson (1987) 2 1.0 1Billion years ago. 2Nonsynonymous substitution data averaged from Table 4 (Ochman and Wilson 1987). Contact Information: Heather Maughan Department of Cell & Systems BiologyUniversity of Toronto25 Willcocks St.Toronto, ONM5S 3B2Canadaheather.maughan@utoronto.ca LITERATURE CITED Maughan, Heather. 2007. Rates of molecular evolution in bacteria are relatively constant despite spore dormancy. Evolution 61: 280– 288. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume66, Issue3March 2012Pages 945-945 ReferencesRelatedInformation
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 | 0.045 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.321 | 0.184 |
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".