MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137104460

Amphibians and Reptiles of Nova Scotia: Species Recorded in the Accession Books of Harry Piers 1899 to 1939 (Curatorial Report #104)

2015· article· en· W2137104460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Gilhen

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Scotia Museum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerpetologyNova scotiaNatural historyHistoryZoologyArchaeologyEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report summarizes the work on amphibians and reptiles done by Harry Piers, one of the most significant figures in natural history in Nova Scotia during the last 100 years. Piers was a remarkable example of a complete Natural History curator . He had a thorough knowledge of the museum amphibian and reptile collection. He was able to collect, preserve and catalogue specimens from both groups. He had a good working knowledge of the available literature, both popular and scientific, on amphibians and reptiles as well as other groups. Using technical keys he could identify specimens unfamiliar to him. He could interpret herpetology for those lay persons who brought specimens to him and, he published important records in the scientific literature. Perhaps his most important attribute was his uncanny sense of what information would be important for future researchers. It is hoped that, by presenting his records in this curatorial report, it will finally bring to light the  remarkable contribution Harry Piers made to the study of Nova Scotian amphibians and reptiles. _________________________________________________________________ Please note: This information is derived from the original ledger books. The content may not reflect the current state of knowledge on the topic documented. Please be aware of this when using this resource.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Scotia MuseumSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207