Prepared by the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management and recovery actions for Kirtland’s Warbler in Canada are carried out under the direction of the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team and the Canadian Wildlife Service, with input and advice considered from various experts and authorities. Contributions from interested field personnel towards searching and monitoring are a very valuable component of recovery efforts. The following protocol has been prepared to assist recovery-related efforts to search for and monitor occurrences of Kirtland’s Warbler in Canada. The purpose is to provide some standardization and documentation of efforts while at the same time ensuring minimal to no disturbance of Kirtland’s Warblers on established territories. Objectives of the Searching and Monitoring Protocol for Kirtland’s Warbler in Canada: • Determine the distribution of Kirtland’s Warbler in Canada; • Increase the knowledge of Kirtland’s Warbler breeding biology, behaviour and habitat use in Canada; • Identify important habitat features; • Identify potential threats to the species and habitat in Canada. Approaching the nest (i.e. conducting nest searches and/or nest checks) of Kirtland’s Warbler or other migratory bird species at risk requires authorization under a Migratory Bird Regulations permit issued by the Canadian Wildlife Service and may also require 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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.018 |
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".