Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most instances, biogeographical monographs deal only with a fragmentary aspect of the subject-matter. In spite of their titles, some of these monographs are nothing but phytogeographical essays, and even then, these deal with a limited range of phanerogams only and leave aside the cryptogams. This is so because the authors, when they are not also systematically oriented, neglect a large segment of the flora and fauna. Research conditions also require sometimes specialization around one particular point. A biogeographical study which would claim to be comprehensive must include not only the vegetation cover, the fauna, and man in his many-sided activities, but also a description of the whole living world since the very beginnings of the organization of the Biosphere. Taking the Saint-Lawrence River, this essay depicts some examples of features which are all-important in an unabridged biogeography. Thus, the study deals successively with the pageant of life on the River since the Precambrian era ; a brief look at the discordant levels of the Laurentian flora : the upper part of the thalweg, the banks, the shores, and the waters, since each of these elements follow a different evolution in their rhythm; the calendar of the seasons and the irregularities which upset the climatic cycle. Finally, man enters the scène with all the elements which tie him to the River: patterns of settlement, toponymy, house construction styles, clothing, transportation, gathering, hunting, forestry and agriculture, gastronomy, medicine, and, finally, the role of the River in recreational activities and in literary works. Since the author bas devoted nearly half a century to the study of the River, this essay sometimes includes autobiographical elements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.009 |
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".