Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable confusion and delay has arisen because ornithologists wishing to collect birds or their nests or eggs in the Dominion of Canada have not been familiar with the law.Application for permission to take migratory insectivorous, migratory game, or migratory non-game birds, as defined in the Migratory Birds Convention, in Canada, should be made to J. B. Harkin, Commissioner of Dominion Parks, Department of the Interior, Ottawa.As other kinds of permits are issued by this department, be sure to state explicitly that you wish to collect the migratory birds protected by federal law.Permits will be issued as promptly as possible, but the collector should allow two or three weeks' time in case unforeseen difficulties arise.Applications from recognized museums or scientific societies do not require to be supported by testimonials.The director of the museum should make application for each person who is collecting for the museurr•.If there is doubt as to the museum being well-known, it is suggested that written testimonials be furnished as required for individuals.Individual collector's applications must be supported by written testimonials from two well-known ornithologists.Mere endorsation of the application will not suffice.The testimonial should refer fully to the ornithological work of the applicant and state the writer's opinion as to the value of that work.Applicants should state the locality, if possible, certainly the Province in which they intend to collect.Permits issued by this branch allow the holder to take birds protected by the Migratory Birds Treaty.Many other species are protected by Provincial laws, and perrrdssion to take them should be sought from the Provincial authorities.The provincial officers concerned are
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.010 |
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".