How Common Are Wintering Long-eared Owls in Ohio?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has previously been only one recorded report of a potential sooty tern for Ohio, in 1945.Bill Whan has provided me wit~ the following information regarding that report and records from surrounding states:"On 5 August 1945, several observers reported having observed a tern on Mogadore Reservoir in Portage Co.The bi~d wa~ studied for an hour with scopes and binoculars, and a report published in Audubon magazine 47(5):48, where Ludlow Griscom remarked.that it lef~ " no room for reasonable doubt" that it was "one of the two tropical oceamc darkbacked terns" [i.e., sooty or bridled].Ohio authorities, however, have been unable to locate the documentation, and while this bird was quite possibly a sooty tern, it might have been a bridled tern, and in any event better .evidence would probably be required for a first state record.No humcane is likely to have affected Ohio significantly on this date.according to. .Weather Service records.All adjacent states and provinces except M1ch1gan already have records of this species; Indiana's sole record is of a dea~ bird, while Pennsylvania, West Virginia.Ontario, and Kentucky have mult1ple records.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".