Bibliographic record
Abstract
A summary of distribution of memberships in the Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club and subscribers to The Canadian Field-Naturalist for 2010 is given in Table 1.The number of articles and notes in Volume 124 is summarized in Table 2 by topic; totals for Book Reviews and New Titles are given in Table 3, and the distribution of content by page totals per issue in Table 4. Manuscripts excluding book reviews, notices, and reports] submitted to The Canadian Field-Naturalist totalled 56 in 2010 all of which were processed to various stages during the year; 21 of these were accepted for 2010 issues along with 23 first submitted in 2009, two first submitted in 2002, and one each in 2004 and 2005, all revised in 2010.The journal was printed once again at Gilmore Printers, Ottawa, and thanks are due Chuck Graham for overseeing production and printing.As they have for many years now, Elizabeth Morton proofed and edited manuscripts, Wendy Cotie typeset galleys and corrections for page proofs, and prepared pdfs, Roy John requested books for review, selected reviewers, edited submitted reviews, and prepared the new titles listings.Sandra Garland, the webmaster for the Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, posted tables of contents and abstracts and some full pdfs on the OFNC website pending development and completion of the new Canadian Field-Naturalist web site by Jay Fitzsimmons.Leslie Cody again prepared the Index with proof-reading by Frank Pope who carried
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.037 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".