Bibliographic record
Abstract
1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Pc1(size) 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 El Molino FIGURE 2. Sample averages of male Savannah Sparrows in the space defined by principal components 1 and 2 from a principal component analysis based on the correlations among 24 variables.PC 1 explains 52.4% of the total variance, and represents increasing overall size.PC 2 accounts for 12.9% of the total variance; increasing scores are associated with increasing wing size and decreasing bill size.Island, and the Alaska Peninsula, the differences in size are small, and there is an enormous amount of overlap in all dimensions (see Appendices).For example, the tibiotarsus length (a good univariate measure of size; i.e., it is highly correlated with PC 1 [Table 21) of males from Halifax, Nova Scotia (where they are relatively large), range from 29.4-30.6 mm (average = 30.0mm), those from Woodruff, Utah, (where they are relatively small) range from 25.3-29.5 mm (average = 28.0 mm), and those from Churchill, Manitoba, (where they are intermediate in size) range from 27.2-29.6mm (average = 28.5 mm); males from Sable Island range from 30.3-32.7 mm (average = 31.7 mm); those from Umnak Island, Aleutian Islands, range from 29.2-32.2mm (average = 30.8mm), and those from Wasilla, near Anchorage, Alaska, range from 26.9-29.3mm (average = 28.2mm; Appendix 1).Bill size also varies geographically, with birds from both coastal and the interior of California, the Great Basin, the Great Plains, and north into the Northwest Territories having generally more gracile bills than birds from the northeast or central Mexico (Lerma).Again, however, the amount of interpopulational variation is slight.The ratio of premaxilla depth to premaxilla width ranges only between 0.55 and 0.61, with almost all 0.58-0.60(see Appendices).Thus, although there is interpopulational variation in bill proportions, the variation is slight.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".