Willughby's Buzzard: names and misnomers of the European Honey-buzzard (<i>Pernis apivorus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Honey-buzzard (Pernis apivorus) was first accurately described and clearly distinguished from the Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) by Francis Willughby and John Ray in their Ornithology, originally published in Latin in 1676. Alfred Newton's statement that Pierre Belon had described the species over a century earlier is not entirely correct, as Belon confused this honey-buzzard's features with those of the common buzzard and even appeared uncertain whether it was a separate species. One of Willughby's important contributions to ornithology was the identification and use of “characteristic marks” to distinguish and identify species, including those that distinguish the European Honey-buzzard from the Common Buzzard. Because Willughby provided the first accurate description of Pernis apivorus – and because his contribution to ornithology has never been formally recognized – we propose that the common name of the European Honey-buzzard be changed to Willughby's Buzzard.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".