ROLE OF ICHNOLOGY IN THE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Vertebrate ichnology in North America has a long and distinguished history, starting with the remarkable discoveries by Edward Hitchcock of dinosaur footprints and trackways in the Connecticut River Valley. Hitchcock assembled a unique collection that is currently housed in the Beneski Museum of Natural History, Amherst College, and his work essentially constituted the beginnings of ichnology as a viable sub-discipline of paleontology. Although his original interpretation that these Late Triassic locomotion traces were bird tracks was incorrect, he indirectly linked birds and dinosaurs. Other talented amateurs including John Collins Warren, James Deane, Dexter Marsh and Roswell Field worked on these track sites and some were prolific authors. Three major books have significance, Dr. John Collins Warren published his book Remarks on Some Fossil Impressions in the Sandstone Rocks of Connecticut River in 1854 making it the second book ever published exclusively on ichnology and the second American publication (and first American scientific publication) to be illustrated with a photograph, a salt print, used as the frontispiece depicting what he interpreted as the fossilized tracks of prehistoric birds. James Deane published a book in 1861entitled Ichnographs from the Sandstone of Connecticut River containing photographs and etchings. Finally, Edward Hitchcock published The Supplement to the Ichnology of New England in 1865 that contained seven albumen prints by the professional photographer J. Lovell of Amherst. These volumes pioneered the use of photography in American scientific publications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".