The Ontario Great Gray Owl Irruption of 2004-2005: Mortality, Sex, Molt and Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Certificates of Reporting: Persons possessing a mount or specimen of a specially protected raptor species must obtain a Certificate of Reporting from an OMNR district office.Ministry staff kindly provided summaries of 444 Great Gray Owls registered in the autumn of 2004 and the first half of 2005 (Table 1).OMNR Peterborough: Lorraine Norris, Senior Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist, obtained weight, wing chord and photographs of spread wings from 57 Great Gray Owls.Primary coverts were also collected from most of the owls and were given to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) where they will be added to the permanent collections.Taxidermists: After obtaining Certificates of Reporting, many owls were taken to taxidermists for mounting.Ken Morrison, Jim Vogel, Ron Armstrong, Jim Jackson and Rick Poulin saved carcasses or kept detailed notes on 30 Great Gray Owls during the mounting of specimens.Unfortunately, 12 additional carcasses were destroyed during a freezer breakdown and were unavailable for analysis.Bird banding: During the fall of 2004 and winter of 2005, Nigel Shaw (Innisfil area), Brian Ratcliff (Thunder Bay area), Myles Falconer (Perth area) and John 123 Lemon (Sudbury area) banded 100 Great Gray Owls.Age and sex information on the owls was generously made available to the authors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".