MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403841606 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53229-x

Author Correction: Evolution and expression patterns of the neo-sex chromosomes of the crested ibis

2024· erratum· en· W4403841606 on OpenAlexaff
Lulu Xu, Yandong Ren, Jiahong Wu, Tingting Cui, Rong Dong, Chen Huang, Zhe Feng, Peng Yang, Jiaqing Yuan, Xu Xiao, Jiao Liu, Jinhong Wang, Wu Chen, Da Mi, David M. Irwin, Yaping Yan, Luohao Xu, Xiaoping Yu, Gang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbisEvolutionary biologyBiologyExpression (computer science)Computational biologyGeneticsComputer sciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original version of this Article contained an error in the third sentence of the third paragraph of the Results, which incorrectly read “We annotated 414 protein-coding genes on the sexually differentiated region (SDR) of chromosome W, making it the most gene-rich SDR of bird W chromosomes, suggesting that only 54.6% of the original gene content was lost from the W chromosome, in contrast to the greater that 90% found in most land birds.”. The correct version states “We annotated 414 protein-coding genes on the sexually differentiated region (SDR) of chromosome W, making it the most gene-rich SDR of bird W chromosomes. After removing genes that replicated independently on the W chromosome, 83.4% of the original gene content was lost from the W chromosome, in contrast to the greater than 90% found in most land birds”.

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)0.027
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.017

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Communications→Same topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities→French-language works237,207→