Birding in the 'Old Days' (pre-1980)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birding has changed since 1980!The way we watch birds, how we identify them and the resources we use to do so, how we record and report them and even our style of birding has changed over the past 33 years since the first issue of Ontario Birds.So let's return to the state-of-theart circa 1980.Even the name of our avocation, birding, came into common usage by practitioners and the general public alike in the 1970s.Before the advent/founding of the American Birding Association in 1968, we were bird watchers.It was argued that birding connoted a sportier more aggressive -dare I say -a sexier view of the hobby.The attempt was to exorcise the public view of bird watching as the pursuit of an effete group replete with tweeds and exaggerated excitement over every sighting: "Oh my Martha, I believe it's a Canadian Goose!"The counter argument is that bird watching implies a more careful study of birds and their behavior.In fact, the appearance of a birder has changed.In 1980, we often wore old work clothes from the office or the shop.Oh, we might have some kind of rough field
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".