Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dataset containing 23 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query: { "and" : [ "Country is one of (Philippines, Indonesia, unknown or invalid, United States of America, France, Thailand, Spain)", "DatasetKey is one of (The birds collection (ZO) of the Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN - Paris), Vertebrate Zoology Division - Ornithology, Yale Peabody Museum, iNaturalist Research-grade Observations, Xeno-canto - Bird sounds from around the world, KUBI Ornithology Collection, EOD – eBird Observation Dataset, Field Museum of Natural History (Zoology) Bird Collection, Naturalis Biodiversity Center (NL) - Aves, Birds and Mammals Collections of the Zoological Museum of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, AMNH Bird Collection, MVZ Bird Collection (Arctos), Ornithology Collection Non Passeriformes - Royal Ontario Museum, LACM Vertebrate Collection, Bird Collection, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, NMNH Extant Specimen Records (USNM, US), Collection Aves (bird skins) SMF, Bell Museum birds, Philippines National Museum Birds Collection, University of the Philippines Los Baños Museum of Natural History Dioscoro Rabor Collection: Luzon Birds)", "HasCoordinate is true", "HasGeospatialIssue is false", "MediaType is one of (Image, Video, Audio)", "OccurrenceStatus is Present", "Sex is one of (Male, Female)", "TaxonKey is one of (Loriculus philippensis (Statius Muller, 1776), Loriculus philippensis philippensis, Loriculus philippensis mindorensis Steere, 1890, Loriculus philippensis bournsi McGregor, 1905, Loriculus philippensis worcesteri Steere, 1890, Loriculus philippensis regulus Souance, 1856, Loriculus philippensis apicalis Souance, 1856, Loriculus philippensis siquijorensis Steere, 1890, Loriculus philippensis bonapartei Souance, 1856, Loriculus philippensis dohertyi Hartert, 1906, Loriculus camiguinensis Tello, Degner, J.M.Bates & Willard, 2006)", "Year 1000-2024" ] } The dataset includes 23 records from 5 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0024357-240626123714530/datasets/export for details. Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.296 | 0.385 |
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".