MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7047436638

Great Gray Owls Nesting in Fresno County, California

2008· article· en· W7047436638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaLiquationDiafiltrationEmperipolesisTriacetinDemotion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forster described the specimens of birds, fishes, and mammals that Hudson's Bay Company naturalists had collected and sent to England on their summer 1771 trade ships (Houston et al. 2003).among them were five birds new to science.andrew Graham, the factor at Severn River, provided most of these, including a specimen and accompanying notes that enabled Forster (1772) to describe a "fine non-descript [i.e., undescribed] owl," which he named the Grey Owl, Strix nebulosa.The other four were the birds we now know as the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis), Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonicus), Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata), and Whitecrowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). Status and DistributionTwo subspecies of the holarctic Great Gray Owl have long been recognized.Strix n. lapponica breeds across Eurasia from northern Scandinavia east through northern Siberia and south to central European Russia, northern Mongolia, northern Manchuria, amurland, and Sakhalin (Holt et al. 1999). in comparison to nebulosa it is slightly smaller in body mass and wing length, slightly paler, and more prominently streaked below (Bull and Duncan 1993).Nominate nebulosa breeds in North america from central alaska east through the boreal forest of Canada and south locally in the interior to the mountains of northcentral Washington, south-central Oregon, California to the southern Sierra Nevada, northern idaho, western Montana, western Wyoming, southwestern and central alberta, central Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan (casually), and south-central Ontario (aOu 1998).Great Gray Owls winter throughout their breeding range in North america, but birds of the central and eastern populations wander south casually as far as Nebraska, iowa, indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (aOu 1998).The winter of 2004-05 produced the largest irruption on record.Thousands of birds appeared in Ontario, with 501 found and reported dead (Jones 2005).Daily counts of more than 100 birds were reported as routine in Minnesota in December and January (Granlund 2005). in comparison, fewer than 60 wandering birds were noted in any winter from 1890 through 1965, and the peak irruption reported by Bull and Duncan (1993), in 1991-92, was of fewer than 500 birds.Suggested causes for these southward wanderings include attempts to avoid deep snow cover and shortages of prey in the breeding range (Bull and Duncan 1993).Early California Records Newberry (1857) was the first to report the Great Gray Owl in California: "This large and handsome owl is generally disseminated over the western part of the North american continent, at least we obtained proofs of its existence in the Sacramento valley, in the Cascade mountains, in the Des Chutes basin, and on the Columbia, in Oregon."He didn't indicate the nature of these proofs.Baird et al. (1874) mentioned Newberry's report without comment and reported a June specimen from near the mouth of the Columbia River.apparently on the basis of only those two reports from Western Birds 39:110-116, 2008 1 Quady: Great Gray Owls Nesting in Fresno County, California

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)→Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology→French-language works237,207→