Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canis latrans Say 1823 Canis latrans Say 1823, in: James, Account Exped. Pittsburgh to Rocky Mtns, Vol. 1: 168. Type Locality: "Engineer cantonment" reported at "latitude 41°25'N, and longitude...95°47'30'W" (p. XVIII, vol. 2). Reported in Honacki et al. (1982) as " U.S.A., Nebraska, Washington Co., Engineer Cantonment, about 12 mi. (19.2 km) S. E. Blair". Vernacular Names: Coyote. Subspecies:: Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. latrans Say 1823 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. cagottis C. E. H. Smith 1839 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. clepticus Elliot 1903 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. dickeyi Nelson 1932 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. frustror Woodhouse 1851 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. goldmani Merriam 1904 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. hondurensis Goldman 1936 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. impavidus J. A. Allen 1903 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. incolatus Hall 1934 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. jamesi Townsend 1912 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. lestes Merriam 1897 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. mearnsi Merriam 1897 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. microdon Merriam 1897 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. ochropus Eschscholtz 1829 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. peninsulae Merriam 1897 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. texensis Bailey 1905 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. thamnos Jackson 1949 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. umpquensis Jackson 1949 Subspecies Canis latrans subsp. vigilis Merriam 1897 Distribution: Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, USA. Introduced to Florida and Georgia and currently widespread throughout Northern and Central America (Beckoff, 1977, 1999). Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc). Discussion: Revised by Young (1951) and reviewed by Beckoff (1977). Synonyms allocated according to Beckoff (1977) and Hall (1981).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.022 |
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".