Bibliographic record
Abstract
also went by in open order, were mostly gathered in masses containing from twenty to four hundred birds or more each.They swept along very rapidly.Their largest masses suggested scudd/ng clouds and were decidedly impressive.The Robins moved a good deal more slowly.Both species flew at altitudes vary/ng from twenty to one hundred yards from the ground, and most of the birds passed within a distance of one hundred and fifty yards from my window,--none, I think, farther away than about an eighth of a mile.At ten minutes past ten o'clock I was obliged to take up sonhe work which was awaiting me.But I frequently looked out of the window after that hour, and could detect no diminution in the number of passing birds until after one o'clock r. 5I.All the afternoon they flew by in gradually diminishin• numbers, a good many Robins tarrying for brief periods in the fields before my window.Throu'ghout the day the direction of the flight was the sanhe, and there was practically no retrograding: altogether I saw less than a hundred birds coming back, all Robins.I found that I had counted a total of twenty thousand four hundred birds in the hour and a half, at least fourteen thousand of which were Cedar-birds.These figures are much inside the mark.Between ten minutes past ten A.M. and one o'clock r. 5x.twice the number of birds that I had previously counted must have gone by.A multitude had pgssed before I began counting.Ten thousand, at the lowest estimate possible, must have followed during the remainder of the afternoon.In the course of the day, therefore, many more than sixty thousand birds passed over that part of Camden which I overlooked.I believe that seventy-five thousand --fifty thousand Cedar-birds --would be too low an estimate.The path of the flight also extended south of my position at the window.I cannot say how far it extended, and I can offer no estimate of the number of birds which passed on that side.As usual, Robins had this year become more common in and about the town with the approach of February, but there had been no indication of any massing for this flight.Cedar-birds had been common throughout the previous months of the winter.I had never seen them in large numbers, however, except on February 3 --the day before the flight --when I found sonhe five hundredof them restlessly flying about a near by swamp.They all came together here at times in a dense mass, only to break up again into comparatively small parties.The two species were numerous in the vicinity for weeks thereafter.Still it was plain that the great majority of the host which I had seen had passed on.While at Camden during the winters of 1903-4 and 1905-6, I witnessed nothing resembling this flight.--NATHANCLIFFORD BROWN, Portland, Maine.Chuck-will's-widow and Mockiugbird iu Ontario.--CHUCK-]VILL'S-W•DOW,Antrosto•nus caroline•sis.--Itook a male of this species
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.002 |
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".