Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around 11:00 h on the morning of July 14, 2016, we -martin Bailey and Carol Bjorklund -stopped on a gravel road just south of nickle lake Dam at S13-7-14w2 near weyburn, SK to look at birds and butterflies.Amongst the fluttering panorama of wood nymph, Skippers, Crescents, Cabbage white and Clouded Sulphur, martin saw a sulphur butterfly that was larger, with a clear bright yellow ventral side, unlike the Clouded Sulphurs that were more of a lemon yellow.the ventral forward wing was pointed and sharp, not rounded like Clouded Sulphur.Carol saw the dorsal side of the wings.the forewing was bright, clear yellow, with a wide, black, blocky and jagged outer rim.inside the forewing was a black spot.the hind wing had a very narrow dark black band.the shape of the wings was pointed and sharp.when the butterfly disappeared, martin retrieved his Brock, J.P. and Kenn Kaufman ( 2003) "Butterflies of north America." it was obvious that the butterfly was a male Dogface.we know of no records for Saskatchewan.this may be the first.royer, r.A., (2003) "Butterflies of north Dakota," where Dog Face Zerene cesonia is "an occasional stray" found in Slope and Cass Counties, nD.P. Klassen et.al.(1989) "the Butterflies of manitoba" with two records of Dogface Colias cesonia = Zerene cesonia.C.D. Bird et.al. (1995) "Alberta Butterflies" with one record of Dog Face Zerene cesonia.r.S. layberry et.al. (1998) "the Butterflies of Canada" which lists three records for manitoba and one for Alberta of Southern Dogface Zerene cesonia.Scott, J.A. (1986) "the Butterflies of north America" where he lists Dog Face Colias cesonia as far north as manitoba.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".