Bibliographic record
Abstract
Page 29 m eng other species , I have banded 2, 300 Ring-bill ed Gulls , and have !er 100 recoverie s , a recovery rate of about 4.4 per cent .Of over O f{e rring Gulls banded , 55 have been recovered -a rate of 5,5 per cent .oQO 11 recoverie s represent , of course , bird s found dead in most case s, ':.!l 111 any of the Evening Grosbeak s were trapped and released .This may unt to some extent for the differenc e in percentag e of recovery .011 8 ,&'vening Grosbeak , which I banded on February 18, 19.59 , was trapped re1eased by Mrs. James R. Downs of South Londond erry , Vermont on Feb-8, 1961.Thi s bird , after it was banded , repeated 25 time s during ~ontb, and 1) times in one day , After it had repe ated four or five s, Jt apparentl y learned to trip the lever of the trap purposely , in r to feed in privacy in the trap .One time he was caught with another and almost pecked it to death -that bird had to be nursed back to th before it was released !Anot her Evening Grosbeak , banded on March 20, 1956, returned to my t1ot1 at Burlingto n on January 8, 1957, and then was trapped and re- sed by James Baird at New Brunswic k , Canada, on June 10, 1957.An Evening Grosbeak which I banded on January 26, 1960, was trapped days later , January JO, at Bethel Vermont by Miss Virginia Perkins _ distance of about 55 air miles, to the southeast .South Londond erry, nt, where Mrs. Downs has recovered a number of my Grosbeak s , is about 11111es from Burlingto n.Vermont t :t lt fll8 author has written an articl e on hi s gull banding eXperien ces , which i,1ll appear in a subseque nt issue.-Ed. )Mrs. Marie Dumont , of Pequanno ck , N,J .writes , "We have been noticing that some of our common bird s are getting set for housekee ping.For the past three weeks I have found that U!IStarl ingsat least a good many of them -have changed to breeding Page and are getting ready for nest building .I had a call from a
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.500 | 0.287 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".