Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back in the Summer 2002 i ue of The Ohio Cardinal (25(4): 181-85), we began a eries discus ing the rare birds of Ohio and, hopefully.how to find them.We continue that serie here.After all an Oluo state Ii t is only as good as the rare species that appear on it.Therefore.we have combed through the I 0 most recent publi hed years of Tire Ohio Cardinal for each season (Spring 1993-2002.Summer 1993-2002, Aurumn 1993-2002.and Winter 1993/94-2002 03), and then combined that with personal experience and perhaps a bit of wishful thinking into brief accounts covering another batch of rare Ohio birds.The species we address here are those graphed only as "rare•• in the first edition of the Ohio Bird Records Committee Checklist of the Birds of Ohio (OD R-Division of arural Areas and Preserve .J11De 2002).In the near future, the Committee hopes to have an updated version a\"ailable online.As defined in the Checklist.a ••rare" pecie ••oonnally occurs annually.but with only a few records on average ... Another term we often use is "casuar•.which the Checklist defines as "not ob erved annually, but with a recog- nized pattern of occurrence.''All uses of the words "rare" and "casual .. that follow conform to the e definitions.In our first installment of this eries.we covered redthroated loon, red-necked grebe.cared grebe.American '' hite pelican.little blue heron.and yellow-crowned night-heron.This time around.we handle greater whitefronted goo e. brant.Eurasian wigeon.harlequin duck, white-winged coter.and long-tailed duck.That' a lot to handle.so I ugge t we begin immediately.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.708 | 0.443 |
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".