Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study examines the ways in which birders “read” nature while birdwatching. Looking (figuratively) through the binoculars lens of embodiment, it explores questions about how birders interact with nature as an information source and what role the senses play in their information experiences. Three non-professional female birders were interviewed using the information horizon (IH) technique, a method that elicits both visual and verbal data. Using an inductive thematic approach, the study finds that the practice of birding relies first and foremost on purposeful sensory attention and that established tools such as field guides and lists can become part of the corporeal experience. Further, it suggests that bodily experience—not definitive species identification—represents the key object of the overall activity. Utilizing insights from library and information science (LIS) and sociological theories, the study presents a new illustrative model of the “birding cycle of knowledge” in which embodiment acts as the anchor and gateway to navigating an informationally-rich world. Finally, a larger, in situ investigation of the social aspects of embodiment in birding is identified as a future research opportunity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".