Ontario Bird Records Committee Report for 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
they did not submit documentation.The OBRC file number is shown in parentheses at the end of each record.The Committee attempts to verify documented information prior to the acceptance and publication of a record, but occasionally inaccuracies will occur.Anyone with pertinent information that would correct or strengthen a published record, such as date(s) of occurrence, number of birds, plumages, location, discoverers, etc., is urged to communicate this to the Secretary.In addition, there may be dates quoted in other sources that differ from those listed by the OBRCthese discrepancies are corrected whenever possible.All records that were not accepted because of uncertain identification or questionable origin are listed separately.Contributors of all "not accepted" reports receive a letter from the Chairperson explaining the reasons for the decision, along with copies of the comments written by voting members.A "not accepted" report can be reconsidered by the OBRC if new evidence, in the form of additional documentation, is submitted to the Committee for review. Changes to the Review ListRoseate Spoonbill, Black-tailed Gull and Black-throated Sparrow are added to the review list for southern Ontario and MacGillivray's Warbler is deleted.Snowy Plover, Curlew Sandpiper and Henslow's Sparrow are added to the review list for northern Ontario.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.104 |
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".