Bibliographic record
Abstract
890.1R½cen! œ/te,'a!ure.387 cotdance and Index,' "in the order in which they stand in his 'Beitriige, with a reference to the volume and page of the 'Reise' or'Beitriige' where they were first described," •vhile "in the second column is given the equivalent name uuder which they are treated in the present paper, the figures at the extreme right referring to the page where the species is con_ sidered."The paper is an extremely important one, and in its preparation the' author has performed a good work, for which students of South American ornithology will be grateful.-R.R. Dionhe's Catalogue of the Birds of Quebec.*--The writer modestly expresses a hope that bis work will be of some use as a guide to the young ornithologists of O•ehec.Tbis is evidently its chief purpose, and is one that cannot fail robe amply fulfilled.The Catalogue follows tile classification and nomenclature of the A. O. U. Chec•.-List, and gives also--as an aid in reference to earlier xvriters--the names and humhers borne by each species in the check-lists of Baird, Cones, and Ridgway.Following this comes a generalized statement of the bird's distribution, ndapted from tile A. O. U. Check-List, together with information as to its occurrence, abundance, times of appearance, etc., in the Province of O4•ebec.Of the 273 species and subspecies recorded, the following seem noteworthy: Mezalestris skua, Larus brachyrhynchus, PrOSres cinereus, Anas slrepera, Ardea coerulea, Otocoris aOeslris /ralicola, Pt'ca •ica hudson/ca, Ammodramus caudacztlus subvi•altts, PitSilo e•Tlhro•h•halmns , Piran•a rubra.It is to be regretted that in recording rarities Mr. Dmune does not always give full particulars and, in some of these cases, that the specimens were uot identified hy some ornithologist of unquestionable authority.The author justly regrets the scantiness of the data at his command, aud, doubtless, more fiekt work in his own neighborhood would have led him to change some statements, especially as to the abundance of certain species.Nevertheless be gives us much yahruble information, and a book that promises to serve so well the purpose for which it was written may well he spared too searching criticism.--C.F. B. Proceedings of the Linnaean Society.J'--The Linua?an Sociely has re cently issued a brief 'abstract' of its Proceedings for the year ending March 7, •S9 ø. "&large proportion of the papers readbefbrc the Sotlelyhave been published in 'The Auk,' 'Forestaud Streatn,'and the'Bnlletin of the American Museum of Natural History,' " and are only mentioned here.Tile bulk of the abstract is made up of briefitems, chiettyoruithological, and many of them of much importance.The only paper of any * Catalogue I des [ Oiseaux [ de la Province de Qu6bec [ avec des Notes sur leur Distribution Geographique [ par [ C. E. Dionne ] [cut] [ Qubbec [ des Presses ,& Vapeur de J. Dussautt, [ Port Dauphin [ •889.8vo.pp.xi 9.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.016 |
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".