Notice bibliographique
Résumé
…and the murderer is identified because the victim's parrot pipes up with vital incriminating evidence just at the right moment. That old, unbearable cliché! And the idea is strictly for the birds, right? Well, of course it is. Isn't it? Hmmm, Polly wanna murder mystery (Figure 1)? B Hollis; CC BY SA 2.0 Halifax, Massachusetts, February 15, 1874: a cold evening for a cold-blooded triple murder. William Sturtevant, out of luck and in debt, had hatched a plot to solve all his financial problems in one go: kill his aged granduncles Thomas and Simeon Sturtevant, and take their life savings. Farmers Thomas and Simeon had amassed a pretty penny in their time, and rumor had it that they kept their fortune in the house they shared. They didn't trust the banks. Now in their twilight years, the unmarried brothers were looked after by their housekeeper Mary Buckley, who lived in the adjoining cottage. William may have knocked on his granduncles’ door, or maybe he just bided his time outside, knowing Thomas would at some point come out to tend his cows. It would be their last meeting. William beat Thomas to death with a birch sled stake. He then bludgeoned Mary to death too; no witnesses, no loose ends. Finishing off bedbound Simeon would then have been an easy task. Though William couldn't find his granduncles’ treasure, he did manage to make off with a few hundred bucks, and the detectives on the case soon became aware of the ne'er-do-well's new purchasing power. According to the Spring 2014 Hanson Historical Society Newsletter (https://bit.ly/2ZzLnX3), they then matched a boot print at the crime scene with William's dirtied footwear. But more bizarre evidence was to come. The newsletter reads (corrected): “According to Wells Elliott, the photographer and eye witnesses to the investigation, Mary Buckley's parrot, Captain Kidd, when confronted by Sturtevant who was brought to the murder house in Halifax by the investigators in the case, cowered in the corner of his cage and cried ‘Murder Murder, Help Help!’ ” So much for no loose ends. It's difficult to believe Captain Kidd really uttered his mistress’ last words, but this is not the only time a parrot has apparently helped put someone in the slammer. Agra, India, February 20, 2014: Neelam Sharma was tragically slain by an unknown, knife-wielding assassin in her home. The intruder silenced her barking pet dog in the same manner. The police were stuck for leads, but one soon came from the family parrot, Heera. The Times of India reported how the victim's husband Vijay Sharma noticed that whenever his nephew Ashutosh [Goswami] visited the house – or even when his name was mentioned – the bird began to screech. After Sharma informed the police of this strange behavior, Ashutosh was arrested and duly confessed his crime. Similarly, in 2017, a Michigan county jury found Glenna Duram guilty of killing her husband, Martin Duram, by shooting him five times. Mr Duram's ex-wife took in his African gray parrot, Bud, who, according to the press, started reproducing an exchange in two voices, ending in what was likely Martin Duram's last plea: “Don't…shoot!” The prosecution, however, had enough evidence without requiring Bud to testify. Perhaps they thought he'd break down under cross-examination. While it is not beyond belief that parrots, having witnessed a violent event, might thereafter show fear toward the aggressor, is it likely they can recite a victim's final phrase? After all, they'd only get one shot at learning it. “I suppose it is possible, but I have seen no evidence of it in my own work with natural parrot vocalizations”, says student of parrot talk Tim Wright, a professor of animal behavior at New Mexico State University (Las Cruces, NM). “We'd have to keep track of everything a bird heard and reproduced throughout its life to rule out that an apparent case of one-shot learning wasn't just an instance of the bird repeating something it heard long ago.” Wright had earlier pondered the same kind of question after reading an account of a Brazilian parrot who, after screeching “Mama, police!” to warn its drug-dealing owners of a police raid, was taken into custody (https://nbcnews.to/2Vuq4YM). “The scenario seems implausible, unless the police were regularly driving through the neighborhood within sight of the parrot and the criminals screamed out this phrase each time”, he continued. “I'm not prepared to testify on behalf of prosecutors who wish to establish the validity of parrots as witnesses in a murder case. I would, however, be willing to testify on behalf of the Brazilian parrot on his suitability for bail. I trust him not to fly the coop.” I once knew a parrot that shouted out “Dark!” every time his owner switched off the light in the hallway where the bird lived. He swore he'd never taught him to do that. I'm not sure if I believe that either. But who knows? Mysterious birds, parrots. Adrian Burton
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,341 | 0,126 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».