Brooks' and Swarth's 'distributional List of the Birds of British Columbia'
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
thither.The experiences of egg collectors seem to be the same the world over, as we read of the authors' search for nests of the Black Vulture and their discovery, after successfully reaching one, that it had been plundered by some Polish oSlogists a few days before.--W.S. Brooks' and Swarth's 'Distributional List of the Birds of British Columbia.'--Thisexcellent publication, • No. 17 of the Cooper Club's 'Pacific Coast Avifauna' series, follows the plan of the previously issued "Distributional Lists" of the birds of California and Arizona and gives us for the first time a carefully compiled and exact statement of the distribution of the birds of British Columbia.The extent of this western Canadian province is much greater than is generally recognized, being twice that of California, and equal to the combined area of the sixteen eastern states from Maine to North Carolina and west to Ohio, while its extreme diversity of topography greatly complicates the task of working out the ranges of its birds or mammals.With these facts clearly in mind, we are able to appreciate the enormous task that the authors have faced, and the admirable way in which they have handled it.They wonder why no realization of the complicated nature of the distribution of British Columbian birds seems to have entered the heads of the compilers of the A. O. U. 'Check List' and criticise rather severely the handling of British Columbia in that work.While making no apology for the shortcomings of the 'Check List,' a word or two of unwritten history may not be out of place in this connection.As the time approached for putting the last edition through the press, it was at first decided to reprint the distributions as they were in the second edition but as these were so obviously out of date the writer of the present review offered to compile new distributions from Ridgway's 'Birds of North and Middle America,' so far as then published, and the latest state lists, including several manuscript lists for some of the southern states.Lack of time at his disposal forbade going any farther, but his work was revised by Prof. W. W. Cooke of the Biological Survey and some records in his possession added and some statements altered.The two errors cited by Messrs. Brooks and Swarth, as examples of the shortcomings of the 'Check-List,' did not, as a matter of fact, originate there, but will be found in Ridgway's work above cited, so that the compiler can at least be credited with accurate compilation even though he lacked knowledge of the zoogeography of British Cohimbial An interesting feature of the list before tts is the frequent interpolation of maps showing graphically the distribution of the various races of the more plastic species which it is often very difficult to define in words.• A Distributional List of the Birds of British Columbia.
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,051 | 0,016 |
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 ».