Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1920, Casey Albert Wood (1856–1942), a prominent Canadian ophthalmologist and bibliophile, began what was essentially a second career as an amateur ornithologist and author. This paper examines the path Wood followed as he learned more about birds and developed a network of colleagues that aided his transition to a respected member of the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) and prolific author on ornithology. It also seeks to place Wood's ornithological writings within the contemporary scientific and popular literature on birds. After his retirement from medical practice in 1920, Wood and his wife Emma (née Shearer) (1859–1951) travelled extensively and Wood's ornithological observations were published in journals varying from scientific publications like the AOU's The Auk and the Cooper Ornithological Society's The Condor, to more popular magazines like the Audubon Society of the Pacific's The Gull. Wood's contributions often combined natural history observation with literary allusions and personal reminiscence. Towards the end of his second career, Wood turned to his bibliophile interests, publishing a catalogue of the McGill Library holdings in vertebrate zoology as well as a translation co-authored with his niece Florence Marjorie Fyfe (1892–1965) of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen's De arte venandi cum avibus. Wood was representative of an earlier generation of gentlemen ornithologists, eulogized in his obituary in The Auk as “probably the most broadly cultured and deeply learned of his generation in our Union”.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".