Bibliographic record
Abstract
ings and showing the parallels as information, disinformation and wild speculation was accumulated, repeated and refuted.This is a new study of scientific literature because of its origins and perspectives.First of all it is centred on South America with only some brief mentions of North American mammals.Secondly it is restricted to the writers first in Spanish then in central Europe, all of whom wrote in their own language for audiences in their local areas.Only toward the end of the literature covered in the book are we introduced to English sources though the names are obscure here as well.A good conclusion is added where the ideas of the sailors, soldiers, functionaries, friars and adventurers each had their day and their utility in telling a part of the natural history story.The opinions and wisdom of the native peoples of the Americas are not given much consideration because of course they did not write to Europe and the conquerors formed their own opinions based on the utility of the natural wildlife to their own needs, not the inherent worth of the ages of native wisdom.This is neither an easy book to read nor a simple historical storybook.It is a history of intellectual thought and discovery.There are many gems of thought included but the reader needs to be attentive to the thesis of the writer not simply to the many repetitions of the details.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.028 |
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".