Based on the context from the web page, the phrase "Runctitiononal features" appears to be a nonsensical term that was incorrectly published in a figure within a scientific paper in Nature Scientific Reports.
The web page mentions a post by Erik Angner highlighting the phrase and questioning its validity, suggesting it is part of what he calls "AI slop."
The term is likely a typographical error or an AI-generated artifact (a "hallucination"
that slipped past the authors, peer reviewers, and editors, as it is not a recognized or standard scientific term.
The article that contained this error is noted to be under scrutiny and the publisher intends to retract the paper, which further indicates the presence of severe flaws like this meaningless phrase.
It seems to be an example of the problems arising from "Scientific reports in the age of AI" where minimal editorial oversight allowed a poorly-generated figure with gibberish terminology to be published.
Edit history
Recommendations
1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read