MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385635193 · doi:10.1038/s41477-023-01504-y

Author Correction: Ocean current patterns drive the worldwide colonization of eelgrass (Zostera marina)

2023· erratum· en· W4385635193 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Yu, Marina Khachaturyan, Michael Matschiner, Adam Healey, Diane Bauer, Brenda Cameron, Mathieu Cusson, J. Emmett Duffy, F. Joel Fodrie, Diana Gill, Jane Grimwood, Masakazu Hori, Kevin A. Hovel, A. Randall Hughes, Marlene Jahnke, Jerry Jenkins, Keykhosrow Keymanesh, Claudia Kruschel, Sujan Mamidi, Damian M. Menning, Per‐Olav Moksnes, Masahiro Nakaoka, Christa Pennacchio, Katrin Reiss, Francesca Rossi, Jennifer L. Ruesink, Stewart T. Schultz, Sandra L. Talbot, Richard K. F. Unsworth, David H. Ward, Tal Dagan, Jeremy Schmutz, Jonathan A. Eisen, John J. Stachowicz, Yves Van de Peer, Jørn Olsen, Thorsten B. H. Reusch

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Plants · 2023
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZostera marinaColonizationCurrent (fluid)OceanographyBiologyFisheryEnvironmental scienceEcologySeagrassGeologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the version of the article initially published, Yves Van de Peer’s name appeared incorrectly as Yves Van De Peer. In addition, two of Yves Van de Peer’s affiliations were wrongly combined into a single affiliation. These have been separated, and now read: Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium and VIB-UGent Center for Plant Systems Biology, Gent, Belgium. These errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.030

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature PlantsSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207