Bibliographic record
Abstract
The birds of Idaho.--ThomasD. Burleigh.1972.Caldwell, Idaho, Caxton Printers, Ltd. xiii ¾-467 pp., 12 color and 21 black-and-white photos, 1 map.$17.50.--Thislong-awaited book on the avifauna of one of our most interesting western states treats 311 species, plus numerous subspecies.It is an important work on a faunal basis, but not for a person who wishes to learn more about birds through illustrative or descriptive material.The book cannot be described as a copy of any other state bird book.If anything, it brings to mind USNM publications of some years ago with their great attention to detail, but without tying it all together into a highly readable text.Prominent place in the writeup of each species and subspecies is given to the records of Burleigh and others, under the heading "Status in Idaho."Preceding is a section indicating the range of the species, and following is a short discussion under "Habits," and then separate paragraphs on subspecies.In the species and subspecies accounts maps would have been particularly helpful, as one must refer to the single outline map located at the first of the book and not all localities listed in the text are to be found on that map.The sections on habits are all too brief, and the result is that there simply isn't enough on the birds themselves.Certainly Burleigh's broad experience and field data would have permitted more thorough accounts on each species.What is present is good, and is what one expects to find in a state book.For the most part the illustrative material is poorly done and/or reproduced.Half the 12 color plates are photographs of mounted specimens, placed in a way to cover the stand, and the other 6 are of living birds.With the less-than-perfect color reproduction and the mounted birds, the result is poor.Furthermore, rather than being placed strategically, the plates are interspersed at random; e.g., one finds perhaps the best of the color plates, that of a Calliope Hummingbird, nestled between the writeup on Bald Eagles and Marsh Hawks, and the Cassin Finch is inserted between the accounts of mergansers!The black-and-white photographs, for the most part, appear to have been selected more or less at random.Some are good and a few are excellent, but all suffer from less than crystal-clear reproduction.Some do not illustrate birds or habitat, and there is no information on where the pictures were taken.One must assume that the "well-camouflaged White-faced Ibis at its nest" is not pictured in Idaho, since Dr. Burleigh indicates that it is not known to nest in the state.A picture of "Mallard City" depicts a number of waterfowl rising in the air, but out of the mass of birds, the only distinct identification one can make is that of several Canada Geese.As a redeeming feature, these photos are placed near the proper species writeup.There are several omissions from the book.For example, the Wood Duck is said not to be recorded in summer in southern Idaho, but in Julia Davis Park in Boise the birds nest yearly, and in my experience successfully.Not mentioned from the state is the Cackling Goose, Branta canadensis minima, which is known to occur in migration.On the positive side, the book contains meticulously prepared bibliographic references, and there has been a tremendous amount of work in assembling and documenting the information and in Dr. Burleigh's own field efforts.This information will be fundamental to future works on the state.This review has been approached with considerable trepidation; certainly
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.808 | 0.793 |
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".