MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045641696 · doi:10.1525/gfc.2011.11.2.29

John James Audubon's Tastes of America

2011· article· en· W2045641696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Riely

Bibliographic record

VenueGastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildernessOrnithologyWildlifeWhite (mutation)GeographyTheme (computing)Environmental ethicsEthnologyArchaeologyHistoryEcologySouthern HemisphereBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John James Audubon (1785–1851), the ornithologist and artist, traveled widely through the great American wilderness searching for bird specimens to draw for what became The Birds of America (1827–38). He observed them closely in their natural environment, keeping detailed field notes and journals under difficult conditions. Out of curiosity and hunger, he often cooked and ate these birds after drawing them and wrote down how they tasted—another kind of evidence. The article concentrates on his written descriptions (lively, humorous, wry, or astonished) and tasting notes in the wild. Audubon traveled down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, north to Labrador, south to the Florida Keys, and later, when searching for mammals to draw for The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, northwest up the Missouri River. There he wrote about hunting American buffalo (bison), sometimes comparing customs and rituals of white hunters and various Indian tribes, and even sampled dog served by a Blackfoot princess. During the western expansion of the early nineteenth century, Audubon witnessed and recorded profound changes in the American landscape. Settlers’ encroachment on habitat and hunters’ wanton destruction of wildlife increasingly alarmed him. He presaged the extinction of some species whose habits and tastes he described. Conservation is an implicit theme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastronomica The Journal of Food and CultureSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207