Author Correction: Deglacial release of petrogenic and permafrost carbon from the Canadian Arctic impacting the carbon cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the version of the article initially published, due to an error in source files, the model presented in Fig. 5d, e overestimated emissions. In the Abstract, in the sentence now reading “Assuming extensive petrogenic organic carbon oxidation during the glacial retreat, a model-based assessment suggests that the combined processes have contributed 8 ppm to the deglacial CO 2 rise,” 8 ppm replaces “12 ppm.” In the eleventh paragraph of the Discussion, values in the text have been updated to read “These events include a first CO 2 peak of 3 ppm at 16.5 cal. kyr BP and two more CO 2 peaks of ~6 ppm at 14.6 and 11.5 cal. kyr BP (Fig. 5d). These permafrost carbon release pulses lead in the model to a decrease in Δ14C of ~5 permil at 16.5 cal. kyr BP and of ~7–8 permil at 14.6 cal. kyr BP and 11.5 cal. kyr BP (Fig. 5e)….. The simulated long-term effects over the last 20 kyrs when combining both processes are an increase in atmospheric CO 2 by 8 ppm and a decrease in atmospheric Δ14C by 9 permil (Figs. 5d, e), explaining 10% and 2%, respectively, of the reconstructed changes in both variables.” The paragraph previously read “These events include a first CO 2 peak of 6 ppm at 16.5 cal. kyr BP and two more CO 2 peaks of ~12 ppm at 14.6 and 11.5 cal. kyr BP (Fig. 5d). These permafrost carbon release pulses lead in the model to a decrease in Δ14C of ~10 permil at 16.5 cal. kyr BP and of ~13–15 permil at 14.6 cal. kyr BP and 11.5 cal. kyr BP (Fig. 5e)…. The simulated long-term effects over the last 20 kyrs when combining both processes are an increase in atmospheric CO 2 by 12 ppm and a decrease in atmospheric Δ14C by 12 permil (Figs. 5d, e), explaining 13% and 3%, respectively, of the reconstructed changes in both variables.”
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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.035 |
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".