Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEWS Birds of Colorado.---AlfredM. Bailey and Robert J. Niedrach.1965.Denver, Colorado, Denver Mus.Nat.Hist.Pp. i-xxii q-1-454 (vol. 1) and i-x q-455-895 (vol.2), 1,175 total pp., ind.inserts, plates, and map.124 col.pls.and over 400 black and white photographs.$35.00.--This recent addition to the state bird book category is an impressive, lavishly illustrated--perhaps even overillustrated--pair of volumes that occupy as much shelf space, in all dimensions, as Roberts' classic "Birds of Minnesota."The work covers 439 species (46 more than Sclater's "History of the birds of Colorado" published in 1912) and "64 additional races, all the latter based on specimens exami.nedby the authors."Following the preface appear the names of the 23 contributing artists and .36photographers, a list of the color plates, a check-list of Colorado birds, and good drawings of bird topography.The 8-page foreword covers the scope of the work, a discussion of scientific nomenclature, and acknowledgments.Next come 15« pages of "Introduction" dealing with the following titles: Geographic Distribution of Birds (about half of which is geological), Migration, Orientation, Hazards of Migration, Pesticides, Arrival, Incubation, Nesting Success, and Longevity.Under each of these the state of Colorado is only incidentally mentioned, but the next several pages treat Colorado history, especially or.nithological activity from 1776 to the 1950s, with considerable emphasis on the Denver Museum's contributions.Following this is a discussion of topography, drainage systems, and climate, plus a nicely illustrated section on life zones in which the state is discussed on the basis of Merriam's system.A novel inclusion here is the 11 pages of "Some Common Colorado Plants" listed by family and presenting statistics on the number of species in each of the mentioned genera, plus their altitudinal ranges.Interesting as this might be to botanists, it is too sketchy to be of much use to ecologists and probably of no value whatsoever to the bird student.One consults botanical manuals for information on plants.Next is a page or two o.n the altitudinal ascent of spring, and the breeding season, from the lowland plains to the alpine zone.This is followed by general comments on migration in Colorado.I was interested to learn here that conspicuous "waves" of migrants are generally as uncommon in Colorado as in southwestern New Mexico.Of interest to bird listers will be the .nearly9 pages of information on the 1963 spring and Christmas bird counts.The species accounts (beginning on page 72) include sections on recognition, general range, the species' status in states adjacent to Colorado, detailed summaries of Colorado sight records, and mention of specific museum specimens with localities and dates.Many accounts include a commentary on general habits with some mention of the authors' personal contact with the bird in Colorado.The foregoing entries are all useful, and seem to be carefully prepared.In addition to these, in a large number of cases, are the authors' often detailed accounts of experiences with birds in places far removed from Colorado, for example, long paragraphs devoted to Bailey's notes made on Common Loons in Michigan, Yellow-billed Loo.ns in Alaska, and Redthroated Loons there and in Labrador.A significant portion of the text is made up of such material which, while not without interest, has little or nothing to do with the birds' status or behavior in Colorado.Although Bailey and Niedrach "have endeavored to prepare copy of interest to the amateur naturalist rather than to the scientist" (page 3) they express the hope that some of the books' information will prove valuable to the professional orni-
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.780 | 0.764 |
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".