MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309740531 · doi:10.3366/anh.2022.0796

Casey Albert Wood and <i>The fundus oculi of birds</i> (1917)

2022· article· en· W4309740531 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Montgomerie

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Natural History · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFundus (uterus)GeographyZoologyBiologyArtOphthalmologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Casey Albert Wood’s The fundus oculi of birds, published in 1917, was the culmination of his decade-long study of the eyes of about a hundred bird species across the avian phylogeny. Wood was a professional ophthalmologist who, during his spare time, was drawn to the study of birds’ eyes because of their exceptional visual acuity. His stated goal was to inform taxonomy but that turned out to be pointless. With the assistance of an artist, Arthur William Head, Wood described and illustrated in colour the retina in these birds, with particular attention to the number, size, structure, and position of the pecten. Since the function and evolution of the avian pecten is still poorly known, Wood’s book continues to provide a useful point of departure for the study of birds’ eyes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Natural HistorySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207