Bibliographic record
Abstract
have been positively known to occur in the Province of Ontario.In cases where I have no personal knowledge of the record I have given the authority for it."The nomenclature and numera.tionare those of the A. O. U. Check List.The numeration is therefore not consecutive, nor is the whole number of species and subspecies stated.They number, by count, 324; with the House Sparrow, 325-about 8 more than were given by McIlwraith in 1894.The species are concisely annotated with reference to their season of occurrence, relative abundance, breeding ranges, dates ,of migration, etc., while special stress is often laid upon their economic relations, as to whether beneficial or injurious and how.A paragraph is also given to the principal diagnostic characters of each of the orders and families, with an illustration representing some species of each family.--J.A. A. 'An Ecological Survey in Northern Michigan.'1--This Report gives the results of a natural history survey of the Porcupine Mountains and Isle Royal, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, made by a party from the University Museum.Michigan University, during the summer of 1904.The field party consisted of N. A. Wood (in charge), assisted by A. G. Ruthyen, and Otto McCreary, N. F. Macduff, Max M. Peat, and.W. A. Maclean, acting under the direction of Prof. C. C. Adams, curator of the University Museran.In an introductory note Prof. Adams describes the purposes and methods of the survey, and the results are embodied in a
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.003 |
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".