Bibliographic record
Abstract
General Notes 468 156 feet from a metal grain bin, 125 feet from my garden and 400 feet from my residence.The nesting site, to say the least, is quite different from those I have observed at altitudes of 3000 feet and over in the moist ravines of the Great Smoky Mountains, but is similar to the Piedmont habitat of this species described by Odum (upland pine woods with deciduous understory).The nest was constructed of dead grasses, leaves, bark, plant fibers, paper and lichens and was lined with fine grasses.The paper was obtained from waste paper which had been thrown into a near-by gully.After the discovery of the nest, the brooding female was not disturbed until June 27 when several pictures were taken of her and the eggs.The female seemed unafraid and remained in the nesting tree while the pictures were being taken and the male bird made his appearance in the tree.The eggs hatched on June 28 and the nest was not visited again until dusk on July 1.The nestlings were in the nest but I did not see the parents about the nest.The following morning !looked into the nest and, to my dismay, the nestlings were gone.Thus, tragedy ended the existence of the first Mountain Vireo nestlings ever to be found on the lower Piedmont.Mr. Thomas D. Burleigh, biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, made a special trip to see the nest and the brooding bird and confirmed my identification.Mr. Burleigh had planned to collect one of the nestlings for a skin but their destruction prevented this, so Mr. Burleigh made another trip to the refuge on July 8 for the purpose of collecting an adult for a skin to authenticate this discoycry.Although a singing bird was located in the pine woods one-fourth mile west of the New Hope Church, which is two and one-half miles southwest of headquarters, attempts to collect it failed.In addition to the nesting pair of vireos at refuge headquarters, !found the Mountain Vireo at eleven other widely separated places on the refuge and the Hitehiti Experimental Forest during the nesting season.A limited amount of field work was done in the adjacent counties of Bibb, Monroe and Jasper, but the only summer record of the species outside of Jones County is that of a single bird heard singing on July 26, 1946, in a pine woodland one mile north of Shady Dale, Jasper County.Future field work by competent ornithologists on the refuge and the intervening area between Jones and Jasper Counties and the Blue Ridge Mountains of north Georgia should reveal whether this is a major invasion of the Piedmont of a permanent nature or an isolated colony nesting here with a vast expanse of unoccupied territory between the refuge and the mountalns.--RAYMONDJ. FLEETWOOD, Fisl• and Wildlife Service, Round Oak, Georgia.Nestinll of the Eventnil Grosbeak tn Alllonquin Park, Ontario, 1946.-Incidental to field work carried on at Lake of Two Rivers in Algonquin Park for the Department of Lands and Forests, Province of Ontario, during the summer of 1946, two nests of the Evening Grosbeak (l-Iesperiphona vespertina) were found.During the last week of May, a road, about one and one-half miles in length, was bulldozed through a mixed forest of second-growth white pine, black and white spruce, balsam and birch.The action of the scraper exposed a myriad of rootlets which, after a few days, became dry and quite brittle.Coinciding with this period at least ten pairs of Evening Grosbeaks established themselves in what might be termed a loose colony, in woods adjacent to a section of this road.Pairs were frequently seen on the freshly graded earth.On June I0, a female, accompanied by her mate, was observed to carry off rootlets in her bill.On June 12, a similar observation was made and on this occasion we were fortunate enough to see where the material was taken and deposited.The performance was repeated several times, with only the Y2!.9*] 1947
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".