Bibliographic record
Abstract
Louis Agassiz Fuertes was an American painter of birds, active in the first quarter of this century, whose reputation has proven quite durable.His name still draws instant recognition today, more than fifty years after his death.Fuertes was not the first bird painter, nor the best ever; but he was one of the first to make a comfortable living at it (and thus devote sufficient time to developing his skill), and certainly the most talented of his era.As such, he had a strong influence on many young ornitho logists and artists who later became influential themselves, thus keeping his reputation alive.Perhaps ironically, his name has survived better than his artwork, which is rarely seen today.Some recent writers have persisted in claiming that Fuertes was the greatest bird painter who ever lived.This is a disservice to the man's memory, for such hyperbole invites, even demands, contradiction: surely in this expanding field there are half a dozen artists working today who can match Fuertes's best.Better to remember him as one who, in his own era, raised the discipline to a new level, setting a new standard of excellence for subsequent generations.That is enough; there is no need to subject him to petty comparisons against those who followed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".