Bibliographic record
Abstract
REMtNISCENCE and retrospection may not be considered accompaniments of progress but at times it is well worth while to pause long enough to review the past in preparation for the future.Only in some such way is it possible to measure progress in the course we are traveling.Such a point has been reached by the American Ornithologists' Union and the completion of the fourth decade of its existence affords a fitting opportunity to summarize briefly the main features in its development and, in the words of Coues, to see how successful it has been in "bearing to others the torch received in earlier days.,,2 Forty years ago, in September, 1883, a little group of enthusiastic bird students met in New York to form the American Ornithologists' Union.Although modeled on the lines of the British Ornithologists' Union, which had been founded a quarter of a century previously, the A. O. U. was modified to meet American conditions and at the same time built on foundations broad enough to support an international organization.While the initial meeting was held in New York, the idea of the Union first took definite form in Cambridge, the home of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, and the Nuttall Club very generously bequeathed to the Union its journal and furnished the first editor as well.In the years that have passed many changes have occurred, new workers have taken the places of earlier leaders and new lines of work then little dreamed of have since been developed.This is not the time or place to review the history of the Union in detail but merely to outline those features which have made it what it is today.O•cers.--In the forty years of its existence the Union has had thirteen presidents, thirteen vice presidents, three secretaries, five treasurers and two editors.Thirty-four Fellows have served on x Presented at the 41st Stated Meeting of the Union in Cambridge, Mass•, Oct. 9, 1923.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.162 | 0.176 |
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".