Correction to ‘Forest and Biodiversity 2: A tree diversity experiment to understand the consequences of multiple dimensions of diversity and composition for long‐term ecosystem function and resilience’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavender-Bares, J., Grossman, J. J., Guzmán Q., J. A., Hobbie, S. E., Kaproth, M. A., Kothari, S., Lapadat, C. N., Montgomery, R. A., & Park, M. (2024). Forest and Biodiversity 2: A tree diversity experiment to understand the consequences of multiple dimensions of diversity and composition for long-term ecosystem function and resilience. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 2400–2414. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14435 In the paper by Cavender-Bares et al. (2024), it was incorrectly stated that the FAB2 tree diversity experiment was the largest of its kind in North America. It is the largest of the IDENT (International Diversity Experiment Network with Trees) experiments in North America. The BiodiversiTREE@SERC and BiodiversiTREE@SCBI experiments in Maryland and Virginia, USA, respectively, and the newly established University of Alberta long-term tree diversity experiment in Alberta, Canada each have larger total extents. We apologize for this error.
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 | 0.016 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.039 |
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".