Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over 30 years the giant Canada goose was thought to be extinct, but in 1962 \nthe species was rediscovered in Rochester, Minnesota. Ever since, the city has held a \nspecial bond with the species and specifically its local flock. As the goose population has \ngrown, it has become, in some eyes, an intolerable nuisance and a public health threat. In \nresponse to complaints, local officials have taken steps to limit human contact and stymie \nthe flock’s growth, polarizing people supporting and opposing the measures and leaving \nthe city at a crossroads. By analyzing the diverse actions and outcomes of communities \nacross North America that have faced similar issues with Canada geese and \nacknowledging the unique cultural and economic ties between Rochester and its geese, a \ncourse of action is developed and recommended. Such a plan would balance the well \nbeing and contentment of the city’s residents with the local connections to the flock, and \nthus necessarily retain at least some of the geese, while improving their management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".