Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correspo•tde•tce.[-Auk [Oct.guess-work, with no basis in experiment, microscopical study, chemical analysis, or properly observed flints of any sort, as shown by Mr. Keeler's own statements.He is speaking, or supposes lie is speaking, of pig~ ment, but his remarks show that be refers to color in a broad sense.Yet no blue pigmeut has ever beea discovered, and green and yellow are well-known to be not by any means always due to pigment, bat are merely 'objective structural colors.'Thus, according to Gadow, violet and blue always belong to this category, green ahnost always, and yellow occasionally.And among the instances lie cites where "yellow l•athers are in reality without pigment" are snells.birds as Zeter•zs (!), •V•tJtt/tomelas, Picus, etc. Green, except in the Musopbagid•e, "is always due to yellow, orange, or grayish brown pigment with a special superstructure, which consists either of narrow longitudinal ridges, . . .or else . . . the sotface of the rami and radii is smooth and qnite transparent, while between it and the pigment exists a layer of small polygot•al bodies, similar to those of blue feathers."Further space cannot be given to the subject in this connection, but the reader is advised to carefully study, in connection with Mi'.Keeler's "theory of the assortment of pigments," and related parts of his work, the article on 'Colour' byDr.Hans Gadow in Professor Newton's recently pnblished'Dictionary or' Birds,' from which some of the above statements are quoted.It is evident that if Mr. Keeler had possessed what may be termed even a fair superlicial kno•vledge of the investigations that have been made respecting pigments, and the structure of I•athers in rehttion to color, lie conld not have propounded so utterly defenceless n hypothesis as his "Law of the Assortment of Pigments," and would have omitted a great deal of the "rul)bisb" that he has put into his book on the general satlject of the "evolution of colors" in birds.Many or'the minor points in Mr. Keelefts rejoinder are passed over as hardly de•nanding space for tbrmal consideration, even though the real bearing of my criticisms is iu several instances greatly misrepresented.In conclusion I may add that tbe task of reviewing Mr. Keeler's book was a painful one, and was prompted only by a sense of duty, not only to the many inexperienced readers who might be misled by it, but as a needed protest agalnsta very prevalent kind of psemto-science that has or'late gained great currency and popularity.That some such antidote was not wholly unnecessary is shown by the fact that the editor of a prominent scientific jonrnal is forrod to have endorsed one of its most groundless hypotheses.--J. A. ALLEN.]Birds of British Columbia and Washington.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.008 |
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".