Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America, eds. Stephen Desmarais and Paul R. Krausman [Review]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
neous years or volume or page numbers, or misspelled author's names, she asks at once, "Which Johnsgard book did you get these from?"Perhaps his speed of preparation militates against careful checking and revision.In this volume, Borrer, Growe, Means, and Weins are misspellings for Borror, Grewe, Mearns, and Wiens.The chapter on furtive grass sparrows lists Knapton's three important papers on Clay-colored Sparrows under both Grasshopper and Vesper Sparrow, but not under Claycolored Sparrow where they belong.David Duncan and Margaret Skeel's data on Sprague's Pipit numbers in Saskatchewan are not cited in references or in acknowledgements.There are minor errors in several tables (e.g., the highest North American densities involve six not seven North Dakota species and four not five Saskatchewan species).An occasional reader will be confused by the incorrect name of Breeding Bird Surveys, correctly used elsewhere, also being given to Breeding Bird Censuses (a study of a small area done several times each year).Johnsgard admits to being highly selective in his choice of references, but in general he has surveyed
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".