Bibliographic record
Abstract
InterconnectionsIn 1937, the zoologists Glover M. Allen and Th omas Barbour published an article, 'Th e Newfoundland Wolf ', that used the cranial measurements of wolf skulls held at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to argue that the wolves of Newfoundland formed a distinct subspecies.Th e skulls entered the museum collection in June 1865, provided by the trapper J.M. Nelson.He furnished the institution with two complete skeletons and two additional skulls.Th eir Newfoundland provenance is noted in the museum's acquisitions catalogue, but, as Allen and Barbour observe, '[n]o additional particulars are given'.1 It is unknown where it was in Newfoundland that Nelson killed the wolves, or precisely when.Much of Allen and Barbour's article is taken up with issues of nomenclature.Th e trinomial they propose for the island subspecies is Canis lupus beothicus, chosen to honour the 'the now extinct aborigines of Newfoundland, the Beothuks [sic]'. 2 Allen and Barbour also considered the Newfoundland Wolf extinct, remarking: 'At the present time the Newfoundland Wolf is probably quite gone'.3 Additionally, they refl ect on the paucity of information available about the animal: 'Th ere is little recorded concerning the Newfoundland Wolf '. 4 Much of the historical information they are able to provide simply records killings of wolves, including accounts of slayings of individual wolves in 1894 and 1911.Both these Chapter 4 Th e Beothuk, the Great Auk and the Newfoundland Wolf Animal and Human Genocide in Canada's Easternmost Province
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".