Bibliographic record
Abstract
series well within the range of any one of the races, where it will be manifest in only a few individuals.The serious point is that migrating or winter individuals are often recorded as representatives of races not normally to be found in the locality in which they are taken, whereas as Dr. Dwight shows they may very likely be merely aberrant examples of the race regularly occurring there-individuals such as we have been discussing.Such records in the case of slightly differentiated races had better not have been published no matter how experienced the authority who has identified them, and they should be given very slight attention in connection with questions of distribution or migration.In discussing this matter Dr. Dwight in order to emphasize his points makes use of two provisional names ' cismontanus ' and ' transmontanus ' which cannot according to our code of nomenclature be construed in any other way but as new names which will become synonyms respectively of Junco hyemalis hyemalis and J. oreganus couesi although there is no knowing when they may come in for serious consideration should it be deemed desirable to erect other races or should one of the above names become invalid.They will then form bad stumbling blocks for the systematist as no types or type localities are mentioned.Dr. Dwight departs from the rules of nomenclature too when he eraends Townsend's name oreganus into oregonus for which there seems no excuse since Oregan was the spelling generally used in Townsend's time.--W.S. / SoBer on the Birds of Edmonton.•--Mr.Soper has prepared a briefly annotated list of 143 species found in the vicinity of Edmonton, Alberta, based upon his observations during the years 1912 to 1914 together with such notes on the region as occur in Macoun's ' Catalogue of Canadian Birds.'The whole makes a useful and apparently pretty complete list for the locality.In commenting upon the character of the bird life the author calls attention to the fact that Edmonton is in the same latitude as southern Labrador and Ungava although its climate compares favorably with that of southern Ontario which accounts for the presence of many birds which would hardly be expected at such a high latitude.--W.S. Wood on the Birds of Alger County, Michigan.2--To further the work of the University of Michigan's zoSlogical explorations in the Upper Peninsula, Mr. George Shiras, 3rd., placed his summer home in Alger County at its disposal as a field headquarters and the present paper comprises a list of 120 species of birds observed there by Mr. Wood during a residence, from May 24 to July 27, 1916.The list is briefly annotated and some previous observations of Mr. Shiras are included.--W.S.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.042 |
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".