A Study on the Relative Distance Between Adult Trees and Their Diameter at Breast Height.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Metadata: Distance to Next Tree: To measure the distance between adult tees (in metres), a transect measuring tape was used and the center of one tree trunk was measured to the center of another tree’s tree trunk. (Numerical variable) The distances between trees varied from 2.1 to 7.2m.Diameter at Breast Height: A measuring tape was used and the diameter was measured against the tree trunk at approximately my chest height around 158 cm. (Numerical Variable) The diameters of the trees at breast height varied from 0.13m to 0.42m. Condition of Tree: This was determined based on a scale; 0=dead, 1=living, and 2=huge green canopy. (Response variable, Categorical)Methods: A 30m transect measuring tape was used to measure the distance (in metres) between two adult trees that were encountered and the data was recorded onto a table. Adult trees were selected if they lied on a straight line from the edge of the forest towards the centre. To meet the conditions of an adult tree, the tree had to be at least 0.1m in diameter and at least double my height (188cm). Furthermore, to measure the diameter of the trees at breast height, each tree was measured at approximately my chest height of 158cm using a measuring tape. To measure the distance between each tree, we measured from the centre of the first tree to the centre of the next tree. The condition of the tree was determined by the lab group’s observations; each person in the group determined what condition the tree was in on a scale of 0-2. 0 represented the tree being dead and 2 meant the tree was healthy with a lush green canopy. In total, 10 trees were observed to compile the data from this woodlot. Study Site Description: A field study was conducted at the Danby Woodlot located on York University’s campus near Keele Street and York Boulevard in Toronto, Ontario on September 22nd 2016, around 2:30 pm. The temperature was around 27 degrees Celsius, with sun and cloud, and a few hours into the study, a few raindrops began to fall. The woodlot was covered with lots of broken branches, leaves, soil, and was shady because of the large canopy trees. Hypothesis: The distance between the adult trees and the diameter at breast height will both have an effect on the tree’s growth conditions. The greater the distance between the trees, lack of competition results in greater nutrition and resources such as sunlight and space. Trees that are able to grow big, that have big trunks and have a large lush green canopy will be able to better, capture sunlight and resources compared to smaller trees. Prediction 1: The greater the diameter of the tree at breast height, the worse the condition will be of the nearby tree. Prediction 2: Trees that are farther apart from another will have healthier growing conditions. Prediction 3: The thicker the trunk of the tree, the tree will be healthier (example: lush canopy). Group Members: Keerthana Balachandran, Matthew Chiang, Andrew Nguyen, and Kobina Vijayakumar
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».