Wyoming Toad Conservation and Rescue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great deal of work remains to be done if the Wyoming toad is to recover to the point that it can be removed from the endangered species list. By Clay Jackson Imagine for a moment, maybe 7,000 years ago or so, a group of Paleo-Indians had just concluded a successful hunt in the Laramie Basin, located in what is now southeast Wyoming. As they hunkered down to roast some freshly butchered bison steaks in a fire, they might have cocked their heads to one side in order to better pick up the trill choruses of Bufo baxteri-better known as the Wyoming toad. Mortenson Lake, in the Laramie Basin, southeast Wyoming, is the last-known locale of wild Bufo baxteri. It is also a current release site of captive-bred Wyoming toads. (courtesy usfws) The Wyoming toad appeared in the Laramie Basin and speciated roughly 10,000 years ago after it was cut off from its original parental stock- the Canadian toad (B. hemiophrys)- at the close of the Pleistocene. Currently, the ranges of the two species are about 500 miles apart. The Wyoming toad, up until the early 1970s, inhabited the floodplains of the Big and Little Laramie rivers, as well as associated small ponds and watery ditches in a small area of Albany County, Wyoming. Prelude to Extinction The Wyoming toad was first studied in 1946 by George T. Baxter, a graduate student with the University of Wyoming's
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.034 |
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".