Bibliographic record
Abstract
SXNCE my ' Birds of Toronto' was published in'The Auk' • the manuscript list of Toronto birds written about 1885 by Mr. Ernest Seton has been found in the records of the Biological Survey at Washington, and though the annotations are as brief as possible, it is of considerable value.A greater part of the portion dealing with the water birds is based on information supplied by the late Win.Loan, a prbfessional shooter whose information is known to have been reliable.The list supplies definite records for two species that were in my hypothetical list.Sinee 1906 several species have been found breeding at Toronto that were not known to do so then, and additional records of several rare birds are given in this article, together with other unpublished Ontario records.Sula bassaria.GANNET.--Aninnnature male freshly killed was found floating in Lake Ontario outside Toronto on December 19, 1908; it was in good condition and had recently swallowed a herring seven inches long; the bird is now in my collection.Another ilnmature bird taken near Ottawa on October 14, 1909, has been recorded by Mr. J. M. Macoun, • and I am informed by Mr. ]•.G. White that a second specimen was taken at Ottawa about the same time and mounted by Mr. Henry.Hydrocholidon nigra surinamonsis.BLACK T•:RN.--Nobreeding records for Toronto till 1906 when Mr. W. R. Humphreys took a set of two eggs on May 30 in Asbridge's Marsh.This tern has since become a not uncommon breeder; a pair seen at Toronto Island on July 18, 1911, had downy young, and were not themselves in full plumage, both having a good deal of white on the head and under parts.Pelocanus erythrorhynchos.W•TE PELICAN.--Theonly defilfite T•ronto record is from Seton's manuscript list as follows: "Win.Loan killed one in 1862, has seen at least a dozen in all."Marila collaris.RING-NECKED DUCK.--A female taken on September 24, 1906, by Mr. O.B. Spanner at Wassy Lake, Coleman Township, Parry Som•d District, is in my collection.Ring-necked Ducks are not
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.480 | 0.182 |
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".