MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885532445 · doi:10.15641/bo.466

Birds of the Bloemfontein pentad 2905_2610: a review over a 30 year period

2017· review· en· W2885532445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dawid H de Swardt

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Observations · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrnithologyFree stateGeographyOrange (colour)Quarter (Canadian coin)EcologyArchaeologySouthern HemisphereAncient historyHistoryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bloemfontein pentad (2905_2610) is one of the nine pentads of the 2926AA quarter degree square used during the SABAP1 survey (1987 -1992) (see Harrison et. al 1992). Before SABAP1, Roos et. al (1985a, b, c) published a series of annotated checklists of the Bloemfontein district based on surveys by the ?Orange Free State Ornithological Society? (now BirdLife Free State) in Mirafra, which also includes the central parts of the city. After SABAP1, Kopij (2001) did several bird counts in the Bloemfontein area (references in Kopij 2001) including an annotated checklist of Navil Hill (Franklins Nature Reserve), and other bird surveys, which were all annotated in a \"Atlas of birds of Bloemfontein\"; he summarized data over a period between July 1993 to June 1998 (dates correct). Anecdotal bird observations of Bloemfontein birds were mostly published in Mirafra under \"sightings of interest\" or as short snippets. These include the first report dates of birds such as Common Starling, Indian Myna, Black-collared Barbet and other bird species. The birds of the 2900_2610 pentad (which includes the Free State National Botanical Gardens and Seven Dams area) were published earlier (de Swardt 2014).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity ObservationsSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207