dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
The subsampled open-reference OTU picking procedure  [50]  was applied to generate an OTU table, clustering sequences against Greengenes database v 13. 8 at 97% of similarity  [51, 52] , with a minimum OTU size of 10 sequences, the reverse-strand-match option enabled and suppressing step 4 (a second round of de-novo picking). Results did not change when using OTU size of 2 sequences instead. Subsequently, the OTU table was filtered to remove Archaea, chloroplasts, mitochondria, non-phylum assigned OTUs, singletons, and OTUs with a frequency lower than 0. 005% of the total sequence account  [53]. To control for the sequencing effort, we performed a multiple rarefaction Genes 2018, 9, 381 5 of 16 (10 random repetitions) at 3300 sequences and performed analyses with each of the rarefied files to obtain mean (SE) estimates of the parameters of the statistical models applied.
DeSantis, T. Z. ; Hugenholtz, P. ; Larsen, N. ; Rojas, M. ; Brodie, E. L. ; Keller, K. ; Huber, T. ; Dalevi, D. ; Hu, P. ; Andersen, G. L. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16s rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5069-5072. [CrossRef] [PubMed].
However, these values do not account for the kinetic energy of the molecule. To do so, we compute the average ΔE S1-S0 values along the FC trajectories of Fig. 4C  and 4E starting 15 fs after the initial relaxation. The computed λ f max of 672 nm for WT and 654 nm for W76S/Y179F, are closer to the observed values of 674 nm for WT and 658 nm for W76S/Y179F. As displayed in Fig. 2D  and Table  1 , the ESL values are critically dependent on the mutations, as determined from the stimulated emission (SE) decay traces. We find values of 0. 48 ps, 0. 86 ps and 5. 7 ps for L83Q, WT and W76S/Y179F, respectively (global fit of the entire SE data set, see SI). Comparing W76S/Y179F and WT, the measured and spectrally integrated steady-state emission intensities (see SI for details), are almost proportional to the average ESLs, as expected since the fluorescence QY is Φ = ESL*k r , with k r being the radiative rate.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The research has been supported by the following grants  NSF   CHE-CLP-1710191  and  NIH GM126627 01. MO is grateful for a USIAS 2015 grant. HK is grateful for support from  MEXT (Japan)  and  CREST-JST (Japan). KHJ is grateful for grant  NRF-2016R1A6A3A11934084  (South Korea). We thank  Dr. Luca De Vico  for technical help with the computations and for valuable discussions. We thank  Mr. Shinya Sugita  and  Ms. Aki Nemoto  for their help with sample preparation. Funding Sources USIAS  ( University of Strasbourg ),  NSF ,  NIH ,  MEXT, CREST-JST ,  NRF.
13 contrast would yield mean 71% accuracy across participants for the categorization task with a target duration of 67 ms. For further detail, refer to Supplementary Fig. A ). All stimulation was prepared and displayed with the Psychophysics Toolbox for Matlab  (Brainard 1997; Pelli 1997; Kleiner et al. 2007). All trials presented an identical structure (see Fig. 1 ), consisting of a peripheral target of variable duration (0 for a control baseline, i. e. no target, 16, 33, 67, and 84 ms) displayed after a random jitter of between 1 and 1. 5 s from trial onset, at either one of the four pointers, and immediately followed by a central target of fixed duration (50 ms) displayed at the center of a central ellipse. Importantly, this central ellipse was defined during the posthypnotic and non-hypnotic suggestions as a space free of all inattention effects, "inside of the tunnel" (see Supplementary Methods for the full suggestion procedure).
Participants Participation was voluntary, in exchange of 15 f for a 1-h 30-min session. Participants were all contacted by e-mail and recruited by a research assistant independent to the study, from a database of volunteers previously screened with the French Norms of the HGSHS: A  (Shor and Orne 1962; Anlloet al. 2017). Participants intervening in the High vs. Low hypnotic susceptibility contrast were told that they would take part of an experiment that would include their response to hypnotic suggestion and advised since first contact that all levels of susceptibility were equally relevant, equally important, and equally desirable for the experimenters. In the case of participants recruited for the No Induction group, no mention of hypnosis was made at all at during the procedure or at any point of the recruitment process.
08, BF ¼ 40. 7) if one looked only at the difference between 33 and 67 ms (near-threshold values), which could indicate that our effect appeared to be mainly due to an interaction with liminality. We tested the statistical significance of these effects by means of a regression with factors of Congruency, Peripheral Target Duration and Hypnotizability, over pooled SP and OCSP blocks, since evidence favored the model which lacked the Block factor (DBIC ¼ 15). See full results in Table  1. The data collected from the No Induction testing session allowed us to evaluate the impact of hypnotic induction for highly susceptible participants. As displayed in Fig. 3 , subjective visibility increased globally with stimulus energy (Peripheral Target Duration main effect, v 2 ¼ 3099, DF ¼ 3, P < 0. 0001) and decreased with Induction implementation (No Induction > Induction, Induction main effect v 2 ¼ 5, DF ¼ 1, P < 0.
Congruency, peripheral target duration, and induction implementation as regressors; visibility as dependent variable. These findings point to the fact that the introduction of a hypnotic induction further hampered subjective visibility, and even more so for high energy stimuli. We tested the statistical significance of these effects by means of a regression with factors of Congruency, Peripheral Target Duration, and Hypnotizability [levels: High (No Induction), Low (Induction)], over pooled SP and OCSP blocks as with the original dataset. Full results can be found in Table  3.
Funding The project reported in this article was made possible by a PhD fellowship from  Frontiers du Vivant (CRI)  to  Hernan Anllo. It was also supported by grants from the  Region IIede-France ,  Fondation de France ,  LabEx IEC  ( ANR-10-LABX-0087 ),  IdEx PSL  ( ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 ).
, 2013)  from the apparent 14 C age measured at depths of 5 and 10 cm for cores BTGC8 and BGGC5, respectively  (Sabatier et al. , 2010 ; Table  3 ). The time scale was obtained according to the best fit of 210 Pb xs curves and 14 C points, using the CLAM 2. 2 software and Marine curve 13C  (Reimer et al, 2013) , and considering a global reservoir of 441 years (Fig. 4 ). Skewness, sorting and kurtosis were evaluated using the GRADISTAT statistical software  (Blott and Pye, 2001) , which includes all particle size spectra.
3 ). This suggests that the organic particles that settle on the bottom are a more refractory material (C/N: 9-11), remineralized during particle transportation and sedimentation. This results in lighter isotopic compositions, especially at core BTGC8. Besides, the  15 N and  13 C of settled particles are more negative at surface sediments due to a preferential degradation of Biogeosciences Discuss. , https://doi. org/10. 5194/bg-2018-396 Manuscript under review for journal Biogeosciences Discussion started: 11 September 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4. 0 License. molecules rich in 13 C and 15 N, resulting in more negative values and higher C/N ratios at sediments than in suspended particles (Fig. 3 , 5a, 5b). However, this is also due to the stronger diagenetic reactions observed near the bottom layer  (Nakanishi and Minagawa, 2003) , indicating that the particles' diagenesis and time of transportation over the shelf should be a relevant factor in this differentiation.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the  R/V Stella Maris II crew of Universidad Católica del Norte  for their help and support during field work. We extend our acknowledgements to the laboratory assistants of the  Paleoceanography Lab at Universidad de Concepción , for their aid in sample analyses. We also wish to thank  Dr. Olivier Bruguier  of  CNRS  and his lab personnel for their assistance during ICPMs analyses. We also express our gratitude to INNOVA  07CN13 IXM-150. This manuscript was funded by  FONDECYT  Project No. 1140851. Partial support from the  COPAS Sur-Austral  ( CONICYT PIA PFB31 ) and FONDAP-IDEAL centers (No. 15150003 ) is also acknowledged. Biogeosciences Discuss. , https://doi. org/10. 5194/bg-2018-396Manuscript under review for journal Biogeosciences Discussion started: 11 September 2018 c Author(s) 2018.
The previous complete evaluation of the neutron cross section standards was finished in October 2005 (often referred to as the 2006 evaluation) and made available as the NEANDC/INDC and ENDF/B-VII standards. R-matrix model fits for the light-element cross sections and nonmodel least-squares fits for all the cross sections employed were the basis of the combined fits for all of the data. Some important reactions and constants are not standards, but assist greatly in the determination of the standard cross sections and reduce their uncertainties; therefore, these data were also included in the combined fits. The largest experimental database used in the evaluation was prepared by Poenitz and included about 400 sets of experimental data with covariance matrices of uncertainties that account for all known cross-energy, cross-reaction and cross-material correlations.
GMA is a least-squares code developed by Poenitz to fit all types of cross section (absolute and shape), their ratios, spectrum-averaged cross sections and thermal constants in one full analysis. It was observed in some cases that the GMA results appeared to be somewhat low compared with the majority of the experimental data being evaluated. This effect is called Peelle's Pertinent Puzzle  [5, 6]. Study of this effect became an extensive investigation before the 2006 evaluation was completed. A "fix" was applied which basically removed the problem. The modified code is called GMAP. Basically the process for the 2006 standards evalua-Considerable effort was expended on obtaining experimental data for the evaluations. The data obtained were examined for possible problems or needed corrections before putting them in the database.
Uncertainties were obtained and, when possible, correlations within a data set and correlations to other data were investigated. All uncertainties given in this paper are one standard deviation (k=1 or 68 % confidence interval). The work on cross section standards was extended into other areas related to standards: The work on the 30 keV Maxwellian spectrum averaged cross section for the Au(n,γ) cross section; cross sections for prompt γ-ray production in fast neutroninduced reactions; reference cross sections for very high energy fission cross sections; the 252 Cf spontaneous fission neutron spectrum and the 235 U thermal prompt fission neutron spectrum; and the thermal constants. Each of these quantities can be used in either a cross section measurement, to obtain neutron fluence, or to validate a cross section in a well characterized spectrum.
A. H(n,n) Cross Section Measurements Measurements have been made by Moreh, Block and Danon  [9]  that show a possible anomalous drop of about 40 % in the n-p differential scattering cross section suggested by Ref. [10] , compared with accepted values, for 100 eV to 200 eV neutrons does not exist. They measured scattered neutrons from CH 2 and separately from C. The ratio of these data shows the effect is not present for incident neutron energies of 100 eV to 140 keV. Daub et al. [11]  made measurements of the hydrogen total cross section where very few measurements of that cross section were available, at low neutron energies. The data were measured at the University of Kentucky Van de Graaff facility from 150 keV to 800 keV. The results are shown in Fig. 1  and are systematically about 1 % larger than the values from the 2006 evaluation but almost within their uncertainties of 1.
1 % to 2 %. Additional total cross section work at Kentucky has been done by Yang  [12]. The focus was on lower neutron energies than those obtained by Daub et al. Data were obtained from 90 keV to 1. 8 MeV with uncertainties of 1 %-2 %. Final data are not available. They are only shown in plots in a thesis document. So these data were not included in the standards evaluation. The ongoing work at Ohio University on the hydrogen standard now emphasizes the small angles in the centerof-mass system (CMS) at about 14 MeV where few data are available. This work required detection of the recoil neutrons. Obtaining data over a large angular range is important since the data are relative measurements that are normalized to the accurately known total elastic cross section. Their earlier work  [13] ,  [14]  at 10 and 14 MeV used proton recoil detection that limited the angular range to larger CMS angles.
B. Work Related to the 3 He(n,p) Cross Section This cross section is the least used of the cross section standards. It is not accepted as a standard by any libraries except for ENDF/B. Very few new measurements have been made of this cross section. There are data in the past that have been made relative to this standard so changes in this cross section through an evaluation can be important. Since so little experimental work had been done on this cross section, no new evaluation was done. The last evaluation of this cross section was done for ENDF/B-VI. It was adopted for the 2017 standards. C. 6 Li(n,t) Cross Section Measurements Angular distribution measurements for that reaction at higher neutron energies have been completed by Zhang et al. [18]  at Peking University and by Devlin et al.
The deposits were made at JRC Geel, however JRC Geel recently found an error so the mass changed by about 1 %. This leads to a cross section lower than the standard by about 1 %. Measurements have been made by Giorginis and Bencardino  [21]  at JRC Geel at 1. 9, 2. 0 and 2. 1 MeV. The data were obtained relative to the 238 U(n,f) cross section. The data agree with the 2006 standards evaluation at 1. 9 MeV but are 2. 6 % higher at 2. 0 MeV and 1. 8 % higher at 2. 1 MeV. However the results are in agreement with the 2006 standards evaluation within their uncertainties. Their measurements used a fission fragment loss correction given by Meadows. Giorginis found that a small change was required to that correction. It was incorporated in the final results of the Giorginis and Bencardino data. A number of data sets having energies above the former standards energy range are included in the standards evaluation to improve R-matrix fits to the data sets.
E. C(n,n) Cross Section Measurements Carbon transmission measurements have been made by Gritzay et al. [27]. The results were shown to generally agree with the standards evaluation and are not dependent on the sample thickness. A motivation for this work was to determine if a strong resonance predicted by Canton et al. [28]  is present in the 130-160 keV energy region. No evidence for a resonance was found. Filtered beam measurements have been made of the C(n,n) angular distribution for five angles at three energies by Gritzay et al. [29]. The data differ significantly from the standards evaluation. The data are relative to lead scattering. Daub et al. [11]  also made measurements of the carbon total cross section. These data were obtained when the hydrogen total cross section measurements were made since carbon and polyethlyene samples were used in the measurements.
5% higher than the cross section value measured by Ratynski and Käppeler. Their results indicate at least 8 of the 41 mb difference between the Ratynski and Käppeler activation measurement and the Ratynski and Käppeler SACS is probably due to the neutron spectrum uncertainty. H. 235 U(n,f ), 238 U(n,f ) and 239 Pu(n,f ) Cross Section Measurements Measurements have been made of the 238 U(n,f)/ 235 U(n,f) cross section ratio by Paradela et al. [46]  us-ing fission chamber and parallel plate avalanche counter detectors. Data were taken with detectors in different orientations and special consideration was applied to determining losses due to the fission fragment angular distributions. The data extend to ≈ 1 GeV. The average of the data sets is in good agreement with the 2006 standards evaluation considering the uncertainties.
I. High Energy Reference Fission Cross Section Measurements Reference cross sections at high energies are needed for conversion of ratio measurements to cross sections at high energies where standards are not available. The cross sections included here are for 209 Bi(n,f), nat Pb(n,f), 235 U(n,f), 238 U(n,f) and 239 Pu(n,f). The database for these evaluations is rather limited. An older experiment done at the LANSCE facility at LANL was re-analyzed by  Miller and Kovash [50]. This led to a determination of the 238 U(n,f) cross section. The data were obtained relative to the hydrogen scattering cross section for neutron energies from 130 to 300 MeV. Unfortunately there were bubbles in the liquid hydrogen target that was used for the fluence determination so an absolute cross section could not be obtained.
New measurements that have been made include: 238 U(n,f) to 235 U(n,f) cross section ratio measurements by Paradela et al. [46]  up to 1 GeV; 239 Pu(n,f) to 235 U(n,f) cross section ratio measurements by Tovesson and Hill up to 200 MeV  [48]  and 209 Bi(n,f) to nat Pb(n,f) cross section ratio measurements by Tarrio et al. [51]  up to 1 GeV. There has been a need expressed for a reference cross section for use in measurements of γ-ray production cross sections. Such measurements are most easily performed using a reference cross section in which a discrete γ-ray is detected. Both (n,n'γ) and (n,2nγ) reactions were considered. Several candidates were investigated taking into account factors such as structure and magnitude of the cross section, status of the database, sample properties, typical experimental environments, and evaluations performed.
In the past, inelastic scattering of neutrons on 56 Fe and 52 Cr, which produce 847 keV and 1434 keV prompt γ-rays, respectively, were considered. For 56 Fe the main drawbacks are the contribution from (n,p) reactions followed by beta decay to the 847-keV level in 56 Fe, the presence of resonance structure in the cross section below about 5 MeV, the non-isotropic angular distribution in γ yield which varies with the neutron energy, and the background from iron materials which are almost always present near experimental setups. The database for the 52 Cr(n,n'γ) cross section is smaller than that for 56 Fe(n,n'γ). Cr suffers from drawbacks similar to Fe, and is difficult to fabricate into samples with uniform areal density. Though more effort has been placed on the 56 Fe(n,n'γ) and 52 Cr(n,n'γ) cross sections, their inherent limitations suggest that other cross sections should be investigated to obtain better reference cross sections.
Three identical neutron detectors were used. Correction factors for multiple scattering and attenuation were calculated with the MCNP code as a ratio of a neutron spectrum emitted from the source surrounded by the real chamber to a spectrum calculated without chamber materials. Since data were obtained for both 252 Cf and 235 U deposits, it was possible with a proper evaluation procedure, to have an impact on the 252 Cf(sf) PFNS from this work also. However no changes were found to the Mannhart evaluation  [58]. The experimental PFNS was normalized to unity and the average secondary neutron energy was calculated. A Maxwellian spectrum was fitted in the energy range of 0. 7-1. 5 MeV and 9-11 MeV to the measured spectrum and an extrapolation to zero and to 20 MeV was performed. The spectra measured with the three detectors are in excellent agreement and do not exhibit any angular dependence.
The data obtained disagree in some respects with PFNS data for 235 U(n th ,f) from different evaluated data libraries. However, the data agree well with most experimental results. The results show that the spectrum is softer than the previous evaluation, having a higher yield in the energy range below 1 MeV. It also has a larger yield above about 9 MeV but the uncertainties are quite large in that energy region. Measurements were also made of the 235 U(n,f) PFNS for thermal neutrons relative to the 252 Cf(sf) PFNS by Vorobyev et al. [59]  at the Gatchina research reactor. The measurements of the prompt neutron spectra were performed at 11 fixed angles between the neutron and light fragment direction in the range from zero degrees to 180 degrees in 18 degree intervals. After the measured energy distributions for 11 fixed angles were corrected for the energy and angular resolution of the neutron detector, the total prompt neutron spectra were obtained by summing over all angles.
A. Neutron Cross Section Standards Improvements have been made in the very large database used for this standards evaluation. It includes the standards and ratios among them that can lead to improved evaluations of the standards. The cross sections evaluated were H(n,n), 6 Li(n,t), 10 B(n,α 1 γ), 10 B(n,α), C(n,n), Au(n,γ), 235 U(n,f) and 238 U(n,f). Also included in the evaluation process are the 238 U(n,γ) and 239 Pu(n,f) cross sections. Those data were included since there are many ratio measurements of those cross sections with the standards, and absolute data are available for them. The older measurements are given in Ref. [1]  and the newer ones are given in Sec. II. The experiments included in the GMAP database since the 2006 evaluation as direct input to GMAP are listed in Table  II.
In the table, "Data set number" refers to datasets in the GMA database. These data and those shown in Table II of Ref. [1]  define the entire database used as direct input of experimental data to GMAP. In Table  III , experiments included in the R-matrix analyses since the 2006 evaluation are listed. These data and those shown in Tables III and IV of Ref. [1]  define the entire database used for the R-matrix analyses. For details on the general evaluation process for the cross sections reactions, see Ref. [1]. Basically the process involved using the GMAP (GMA) code  [7, 8]  to combine input from EDA  [65]  and RAC  [66]  R-matrix analyses; also included are a thermal constants evaluation  [67]  and direct experimental measurements as input data to GMAP. The procedure for evaluating the standards can be divided into four stages.
1. R-matrix analysis of the hydrogen cross section and subsequent renormalization of cross sections measured relative to that standard in the GMA database. 2. Independent evaluation of the 6 Li(n,t), 10 B(n,α 1 γ) and 10 B(n,α) reactions using the R-matrix model and experimental data available for all reactions that create 7 Li and 11 B compound systems. These data include various observables for all neutron-and charged-particle-induced reactions (integral and differential cross sections, and polarizations). Use of different R-matrix codes to fit the same data followed by analysis and minimization of the observed differences between the fits increases the reliability of the evaluation. Any differences in fits that cannot be eliminated by this analysis are accommodated when the R-matrix results are combined with the remaining data by a least-squares fit to produce the standards for the light and heavy nuclides.