Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documenting of natural history flourished with exploration of remote parts of North America during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but the earliest published observations on the biota of Sable Island, along with casual observations in the journals of successive superintendents are vague, and emphasize exploitability. John Gilpin’s 1854 and 1855 visits were the first by a knowledgeable naturalist. His published 1859 “lecture” includes sketchy descriptions of the flora, birds, pinnipeds, and a list of collected marine molluscs. Reflecting growth of ‘cabinet’ natural history in New England, J. W. Maynard in 1868 collected a migrant sparrow in coastal Massachusetts, soon named Ipswich Sparrow and recognized as nesting on Sable Island. This persuaded New York naturalist Jonathan Dwight to visit the island in June-July1894 and produce a substantial monograph on the sparrow. He in turn encouraged Superintendent Bouteiller’s family to send him many bird specimens, some very unusual, now in the American Museum of Natural History. Dominion Botanist John Macoun made the first extensive collection of the island’s plants in 1899, but only wrote a casual account of the biota. He possibly also promoted the futile tree-planting experiment in May 1901 directed by William Saunders, whose son, W. E., published some observations on the island’s birds, and further encouraged the Bouteillers to make and publish systematic bird observations, 1901-1907. This account closes with Harold St. John’s 1913 stay on the island and his first truly modern treatment of the island’s flora in 1921. Little more was added before modern biological research was initiated, arguably with censuses and biological sampling of seals in the early 1960s.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".