Bibliographic record
Abstract
of representing the Swallows as having the ]SroySala•o'ialœs brevœs inserted in the same way as the 12ham]Shas/os, in other words, after the Oashion of the picarian birds.Whether that drawing was sent to 'Science'by a miatake, or not, ia of no consequence; the thct remains that a man, who is going to teach others all about the "taxonomic muscles" in birds, bas prepared suchadrawlngand finisbeditsofarthatitcould be reproduced bv the regular photo-engraving process.lapprove most heartily of Dr. Shufeldt's concluding sentence: •es, lel us by all means have inlellia•enl Finally a few words in regard to the name of the much talked of muscular slip.The only rallonal name of it is the one given by Ffirbringer, viz., •ars •ro•alaffial/s muscull c•cullartM This is evidently an instance "where the name is five times as big as the muscle," xvhich, "for the sheer sake of clearness and convenience," Dr. Shnfcldt wants to lay aside as an abominable name bestoxved by the "old anatomists."Here Dr. Shufeldt again proves his ignoranceof Dr. Ftirbringerand his works.Ffirbringeris not oneof the "old anatomists," he isone of the younger ones, andbe is, moreover, the great reformer of myological nomenclature "for the sheer sake of clearness and convenience."The name given byhim signifies that this mnscle is only a pataglal slip of n2uscul•ls cucullaris, leaving nothing to be desired in regard to clearness and convenience, for, of course, in speaking of it Ftirbringer does not use the whole name, but simply "•rofiala•t'alL* c;tcullaris," which is hardly longer than Dr. Shufcldt's "dermo-lensor•ataffD'."The latter, however, is neither clear nor convenient, for s•rely •ro•a/(tA, i(tlt• lol%•us is the true dermo-lensor•ala•rii, and not the slip ofcucullaris, •vhicb in mostcases is onlya dermo-lensor•ara-• a la•vD'.14/ashluff/on, D.C., December, I887.LEONHARD STEJlqEGER.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.697 | 0.609 |
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".