A vile passion for altering names: the contributions of Charles Thorold Wood jun. and Neville Wood to ornithology in the 1830s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1830s, Charles Thorold Wood jun. and his younger brother Neville Wood, published, separately, three books and a series of articles dealing with two ornithological subjects: the common and scientific names of birds, and the cataloguing of publications. Probably following William Swainson's lead, the Woods were enthusiastic about standardizing the common (English) bird names and making them logical and meaningful. They also each published an annotated bibliography of ornithological publications, notable for being among the first of such compilations, but also for the vitriol with which they criticized those – James Rennie and Hugh Strickland, in particular – whose work they did not like. In contrast, the praise they heaped on those they did approve of – William Swainson, John Latham, Robert Mudie, Prideaux John Selby, Francis Willughby and each other – was excessive. Possibly because of the tenor of their comments about other ornithologists, and the strangeness of their proposed English bird names, the Woods’ work has rarely been cited, and their new names for birds were virtually ignored from the start.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".