Bibliographic record
Abstract
hand, and past this the old birds were obliged to squeeze while entering and leaving.The nest proper was a foot or so further along.I cannot see how the young birds could exist for a day without being partially roasted.They must have had to endure over 150 degrees of heat.--A.BRAZX•R HOWSLL, Covina, Cal.Swainson's Warbler (Helinaia swainsoni) at Guantanamo, Cuba.--I shot a male of Swainson's Warbler on January 18, 1914, in the heavy timber at the San Carlos Plantation, Guant•namo, Cuba.The bird was feeding on the ground among the dry leaves, was not a bit shy, and in fine plumage.This is the first record for this end of the island, and the second for Cuba; the other being by Gundlach at Cojimar near Havana, on the north coast.--CnAs.T. R•s•)sN, Guantanamo, Cuba.Magnolia Warbler in Colorado.--Isecured a male of this species Dendroica magnolia in Denver, Colo., on May 20, 1913.This is a rare warbler in this state; and it is interesting to see that all the previous records, numbering six, show the birds as occuring in May, between the 17th and the 22nd, the single exception being May 12.--W.H. BERGTOLD, Denver, Colo.Canadian Warbler in Colorado.--Afemale of this species, Wilsonia canadensis, was shot by the writer at Parker, Colo., on Sept. 9, 1913.Parker is about fifteen miles east of the 'foothills,' and nearly sixty miles west of the only other locality in the state where this warblcr has been seen, to wit, Lake, Lincoln Co., where it was reported by Aiken as seen and shot, on May 23, 1899.--W.H. B•ROTOL•), Denver, Colo.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".