Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1936 to 1943 at all appropriate times and places toads could be heard In and about Norman In medium to large numbers, depending upon conditions prevailing. In one place, tor example, just northwest of the city limits breeding Individuals ot Bufo cognatus Say were so abundant one night In 1938 that removal ot over 400 males made no discernible difference In the sound made by the calls. It was a common experience in Norman to hear congresses ot B. woodhousii woodhousii Girard on the Canadian River flood plain, two or three miles away, so numerous were the toads at times. Spadefoots (Spea bombi/rons Cope) and small forms like Microhyla carolinensis olivacea Hallowell), Pseudacris clarkii Baird and Ps. atreckeri W. & W. were also very abundant as judged by the numbers of calls heard. In 1941, heavy rains in late spring and early summer gave optimum conditions for breeding and thousands of young of the prairie forms emerged after the most successful breeding year known in thi8 region (1).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".