Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auk sections.This paper is a very important one and much valuable data can be obtained from the figures and grouping, both economic and distributional.--W.S. Birds as Factors in the Control of the Fall Webworm.--Dr.John D. Tothill, whose preliminary papers on the natural control of the fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea) have already been noticed in 'The Auk' (25, No. 2, April 1918, p. 252) is doing the best work the reviewer is aware of in bringing to light the actual effect upon insects of the feeding habits of birds.The present comprehensive report • details the results of eight years' study of the fall webworm in New Brunswick, and of shorter periods in Nova Scotia and British Columbia.Careful account was kept each year of the percentage of destruction of the pest by various agencies, and it was found that Red-eyed Vireos destroyed from 11.4 to 89.5 per cent of the broods, averaging more than 68 per cent, far more, of course than any other agency.As a test case 382 caterpillars were placed on a tree and in 9 days the birds had taken all but 6 that had been parasitized.The work of the birds naturally was most effective when the webworm was scarce and in some years it seemed scarcely a worm escaped the Vireos.The insect seemed clearly doomed to local extinction when a flight of adult moths from a distance repopulated the district.In summing up his observations Dr. Tothill refers to the "tremendously important part played by the Vireos in Eastern Canada, and by undetermined birds in British Columbia," and concludes: "They are of least importance when the
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".