Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue, we offer two informative pieces on one of our continent's most striking songbirds, Painted Bunting.The article by Sykes and Holzman on the species' breeding range in the East and the article by Mlodinow and Hamilton on its extralimital wandering together contribute much to our understanding of the bunting's status and distribution; a later paper on wintering distribution will complement these articles."Why offer such exhaustive descriptions, when we already have field guides' maps?" some might ask.There are many compelling reasons to pursue an increasingly refined understanding of where this species is found--and where it is absent.The most important is that, at least in the Southeast, Painted Bunting habitat is being lost to development at a rapid pace.As private lands are developed in the Southeast, the public areas described specifically as bunting habitat will almost certainly become the last refugia of the species in the East.For the conservation of the population, it is crucial that scientists and planners know where the birds are.(It is also useful information for birders who would like to see one.)The second paper tackles a trickier subject, the "vagrancy"of Painted Bunting.Working from an exhaustive table of extralimital reports of the species from every state that lacks a breeding population, along with Bermuda and eight Canadian provinces, the authors discover strong seasonal patterns in the reports and suggest possible causes for these patterns.What connects these papers, besides their topic?Take a look at the Acknowledgments and the many "in litt."and"pers.comm."references in them.These studies would hardly have been possible without the help of hundreds of knowledgeable, local observers, who supplied the writers with old records, current breeding areas, and documentation that form the core of the data, along with Breeding Bird Survey results and findings of other citizen-science initiatives.To understand where these buntings breed, and where they appear as vagrants (some of which stay to breed), thousands of eyes were needed.The core oJ people who made these papers possible consists, by and large, oJ the readers oJ this journal.The "Changing Seasons"essay brings this point home.Sullivan and Wood examine trends in abundance of several "common" species--particularly American Kestrel using the best available data from citizen-science initiatives.Ihey also look briefly at trends of vagrancy in two favorites, Cave Swallow and Red-throated Pipit.Their point, as directors of the new "eBird" project based at Cornell Lab of Ornithology, is straightforward: the status and distribution of our avi[auna are ever changing, never static.Where Ernest Choate could tally 25,000 kestrels in a day, at Cape May, modern hawkwatchers now fail to find that many in [our months of dawn-to-dusk census work.But Choate never knew a Cave Swallow there, a species that modern birders now find annually, sometimes by the dozens.What was once abundant is now far
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.367 | 0.348 |
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".