Fix 9 of the 17 SPRUCE paraphrases; the other 8 are paywalled (#347) - #504
Merged
Conversation
#347 calls these paraphrases rather than quotes. Confirmed, then split by whether anything can be done about them. The 17 failures come from exactly two references. Neither had full text cached, so the first question was whether they were paraphrases at all or just unverifiable: PMID:34836550 open access -> 103,390 chars of OA full text now cached PMID:38515239 not open access in Europe PMC (pmcid=None, oa=False) With the full text in hand, the 9 snippets on the OA paper still did not match - which is what makes them genuine paraphrases rather than a caching gap. They are faithful, just not verbatim: record "Predicted host ranges were narrow, generally within a single bacterial genus" source "Predicted host ranges for SPRUCE vOTUs were relatively narrow, generally within a single bacterial genus" All 9 replaced with verbatim text from the cached source, one at a time against the validator: 17 -> 16 on the first, 17 -> 8 when the rest landed. `snippet` is meant to be an exact quote, so this restores the guarantee rather than loosening the check. The remaining 8 are all PMID:38515239 and cannot be fixed here - the paper is paywalled, so there is nothing to quote from. They are the "unverifiable" bucket, not the "wrong" one, and #347 should stay open for them with that distinction recorded. Note the validator's "only abstract available" hint was accurate this time, unlike the case in #496 where full text was cached and the same message appeared. Worth checking the cache rather than trusting the message either way. references_cache/PMID_34836550.md grows by the OA full text, which is the point - it is committed so the snippets stay verifiable for anyone else. 2375 passed, validate-strict 0 errors, docs regenerated.
Network integrity findingsWarnings only — a member with no interaction yet, or a participant matched by ontology id rather than by name, or one on a community-level interaction that resolves to no member. Reported, but does not fail the build. The full report is attached to the workflow run as an artifact. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#347 calls these paraphrases rather than quotes. Confirmed — then split by whether anything can be done about them.
The 17 come from exactly two references
Neither had full text cached, so the first question was whether they were paraphrases at all or merely unverifiable:
PMID:34836550PMID:38515239pmcid=None, oa=False)With the full text in hand, the 9 snippets on the OA paper still did not match. That is what makes them genuine paraphrases rather than a caching gap — and it is the check #347 could not run when it was filed.
They are faithful, just not verbatim:
All 9 replaced with verbatim source text
Done against the validator rather than in bulk — 17 → 16 on the first replacement to prove the path, then 17 → 8 when the rest landed.
snippetis meant to be an exact quote, so this restores the guarantee rather than loosening the check.The remaining 8 cannot be fixed here
All are
PMID:38515239, which is paywalled — there is nothing to quote from. They are the unverifiable bucket, not the wrong one, and #347 should stay open for them with that distinction recorded rather than closed as if the record were clean.One cross-reference worth noting
The validator's "only abstract available" hint was accurate this time — unlike the case in #496, where full text was cached and the same message appeared. The lesson holds in both directions: check the cache rather than trusting the message.
references_cache/PMID_34836550.mdgrows by the OA full text. That is committed deliberately — it is what keeps these snippets verifiable for anyone else.2375 passed,validate-strict0 errors, docs regenerated.🤖 Generated with Claude Code