Winter Returns of Baltimore Orioles (icterus Galbula) in the Washington-baltimore Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On two occasions when I have observed some of the courtship and nesting behavior of this species I have not heard any singing in the sense in which it is usually being performed by other passerines during the breeding cycle.It is therefore of further interest to note that singing, here used as a displacement activity, may not be a common activity in the Canada Jay.In relation to the situation, on the other hand, a correlation between the song and the breeding season may be assumed in both cases, although in the first instance no evidence of pairing or beginning courtship had been observed yet in any of the three Canada Jays present in the area at that time.--Loms•D• Kx•t•s• LAwamsc•, Pimisi Bay, Rutherglen, Ontario.Winter Returns of Baltimore Orioles (Icterus galbula) in the Washington-Baltimore Area.--The return of a winter-banded Baltimore Orlole to Washington, D.C., in at least two out of three later winters shows that this bird was a habitual northern winrefer.The appearance of orioles, always of the same sex, at three feeding stations about Baltimore, Md., in two and three successive winters suggests that these birds, also, were the same ones, returned--since this seems less improbable than that different individuals should, in successive years, have happened upon those three particular feeders out of the many that are maintained.It would appear, then, that some number of orioles may now be wintering regularly in the United States, and that the increasing reports of winter orioles do not represent constantly different individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".