Bibliographic record
Abstract
9o• "Hear what ?"I asked evasively."Well, I heard Martins if I ever heard thenhi" he replied, "and, moreover, I saw them.I looked up quickly and there were some flying across the face of the moon."June I5, •9 ©, Mr. Bates, walking home from a train that reached Waterville between two and three in the morning, without having a thought of S•vallows• suddenly heard them in the air above.Again it was bright moonlight.In a flock of fifteen or twenty Robins (•lffrerula mfffraloria) that has been about our neighborhood for the last fe•v weeks is a handsome albino.The upper parts, except the breast, are entirely •vhlte, allowing for a tinge suggestive of not being quite clean; but the tail shows sonhe dark feathers underneath.The breast is lighter than usual, a flesh color on the sides xvith a deeper shade through the center, and the bill seems very yellow in contrast to the '•hite plumage.It is both surprising and amusing to see it run along and hop, hop, hop as every Robin does xvhile seeking his food on the ground and to mark the twitch of tail and alarm note of tul, lul! tu/! as it flies up toanear by tree.While at the island of Southport, on the Maine coast, this summer from July 20 to August x7, we heard the White-winged Cross-bills (œoxt'a co,•/era) singing in a manner to which the bird books we have so far consulted do not give due credit.The song of one on the west side from the top of a sprnce tree excited ot•r admiration, but at the cape where coniferous trees abound, the chorus from a nu•nber made us think of a bird store let loose.The song seemed much richer, louder and more prolonged than that o[ the Goldfinch.--more like a Canary's outpour with all the calls, trills, warbles and choppings.It was given on the wing as well as from the tree-tops, and the birds were very tame, alighting on the ground near us.We heard the bird also from the steamer singing at Christmas
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.622 | 0.315 |
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".