MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4394084182 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.4042527

Grassland and Disturbed Open Space Data for York University

2016· dataset· en· W4394084182 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melinaz Barati, Diana Bleyan, Nargol Ghazian, Noyell Sakthikumar

Notice bibliographique

RevueFigshare · 2016
Typedataset
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueRangeland and Wildlife Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGrasslandSpace (punctuation)Environmental scienceGeographyHydrology (agriculture)Computer scienceGeologyEcologyGeotechnical engineeringBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Description: · Following experiment was taken on October 19th, 2016, at York University for Ecology 2050. The data was gathered in both grassland and disturbed open space at Saywell grassland and Library lane respectively. The experiment took place from 2:45pm-4: 15pm, in clear weather conditions. The temperature ranged from 19-21 degrees Celsius. Data was collected in the grassland area, followed by being collected in the disturbed open space area. (Grassland: 2:45-3:30pm, disturbed open space: 3:30-4:15pm). Methods : Person 1 – Herbaceous Plants (Diana Bleyan) A 50m long transect was placed in a straight line on the ground of the grassland area and disturbed open space. Every 2 meters along the transect, a 1mx1m quadrat was randomly placed along the transect (~1 meter from the transect). The quadrat was placed in alternates on the left and right side of the transect. Person 2 – Woody Plants (Melinaz Barati) A 50m long transect was placed in a straight line on the ground of the grassland area and disturbed open space. Every 2 meters along the transect, students have looked for a tree on either side of the transect within 0.5 meters from the transect. Person 3 – Vertebrates and Invertebrates (Nargol Ghazian) A 25 meter transect was placed in a straight line on the ground of the grassland area and disturbed open space, in order to provide the sense for a 25 meter radius. Vertebrates and invertebrates were observed, using a naked eye. For invertebrates, the length of the transect was shortened to a 5 meter radius. Person 4 – Invertebrates (Noyell Sakthikumar) · A 25 meter transect was placed in a straight line on the ground of the grassland and disturbed open space area and 6 pan traps were placed along the transect (~1 meter away from each other along the length of the transect). Each pan trap was strategically placed with respect to color (the colors varied from blue to yellow to white). The soapy water was poured in each pan trap, covering half of the pan trap’s volume. All the traps were left for 45 minutes. · A 50m long transect was placed in a straight line on the ground of the grassland and disturbed open space and a student conducted 10 sweep nets along the transect. The sweeps were done in a shape of infinity sign, 1 meter above the ground. Meta-data: Person 1 – Herbaceous Plants (Diana Bleyan) · Abundance.native.plants – native plants were defined as species within an observed quadrat, which grow naturally in a given region (Ontario, Canada). · Abundance.exotic.plants – exotic plants were defined as invasive species within an observed quadrat, which were introduced to a given region (Ontario, Canada). · Total.number.flowers (quadrat) – were counted as total number of flower heads within an observed quadrat. A flower head was considered to be at the top of the stem. Person 2 – Woody Plants (Melinaz Barati) · Abundance.woody.plants– a woody plant was considered as a tree higher than 1.5 meters in height. If no tree was observed within 0.5 meters from the transect, students recorded 0. · Canopy.cover– was estimated in %, by holding a square (created by hands, approximately 3cmx3cm) and measuring how much of the square area was filled with canopy of the tree. · Ground.cover – was estimated in %, by holding a square (created by hands, approximately 3cmx3cm) and measuring how much of the square area contains vegetation. · Total.flower.numbers (transect)– was counted, within 0.5 meter distance from the observed tree/trees. A flower was considered to be any plant that contained a flower head, attached to the top of the stem. Person 3 – Vertebrates and Invertebrates (Nargol Ghazian) · Abundance.invertebrate.observed – the variety of invertebrates observed, consisted of mosquitos, butterflies, bees, grasshoppers, beetles and dragon flies. · Abundance.vertebrate observed, consisted of squirrels and birds (including Seagulls and Ring-billed gulls) · Abundance.human was separated from the rest of the vertebrate species not part of our lab. Person 4 – Invertebrates (Noyell Sakthikumar) · Invertebrate species – the number of observed flies, grasshoppers and beetles · Abundance.invertebrates.pantraps – the number of invertebrates trapped in a soapy water of a pan trap · Abundance.invertebrates.sweeps – the number of invertebrates trapped in a sweep net (at the end of sweeping along the 50m transect) Hypothesis: Person 1 – Herbaceous Plants (Diana Bleyan) The number of flowers and native species is higher in the grassland (undisturbed) area than in disturbed open space. Person 2 – Woody Plants (Melinaz Barati) Woody plants are more abundant in grassland (undisturbed) area and have higher canopy coverage and less ground vegetation, in comparison to disturbed open space. Person 3 – Vertebrates and Invertebrates (Nargol Ghazian) The number of certain vertebrates in grassland and disturbed open space will be the same whilst the number of invertebrates in disturbed area will be lower than grassland. Person 4 – Invertebrates (Noyell Sakthikumar) The abundance of invertebrate species is higher in the grassland area than the disturbed open space area whilst the abundance of certain vertebrates species remains unchanged in both habitats. Prediction: Person 1 – Herbaceous Plants (Diana Bleyan) The number of flowers and native species is higher in the grassland (undisturbed) area than in disturbed open space, because there is increased human activity and human traffic in disturbed open space, which results in overall habitat invasion and affects the condition of plants. Moreover, observed results may be attributed to the fact that the disturbed open space was created by humans, which is not a natural habitat for the presented plants. Person 2 – Woody Plants (Melinaz Barati) Woody plants are artificially planted in disturbed areas and are heavily affected by human traffic and human activities, which negatively impacts their condition. In comparison, grassland (undisturbed) area is a natural habitat and is less affected by human activity, which makes it a more suitable environment for woody plants’ growth. The difference in their environments would result in higher canopy coverage of woody plants in grassland areas and therefore lower ground vegetation. Person 3 – Vertebrates and Invertebrates (Nargol Ghazian) Since invertebrate depend highly on vegetation as their habitat, a way hoping from one vegetation to next (movement) and nutrients they will have a greater abundance in the grassland land where there is more variety of vegetation as opposed to the disturbed open space which is surrounded by people, gravel and the vegetation is very sparse. However, the abundance of certain vertebrate species such as birds remains unchanged in both habitats because birds do not directly depends on the resources of these habitats. Person 4 – Invertebrates (Noyell Sakthikumar) The abundance of invertebrate species is higher in the grassland area than the disturbed open space area because the invertebrate species have a more suitable habitat and no disturbances in their environment, such as humans. In addition, the freshly planted grass in the disturbed open space is only a new habitat for the invertebrate species creating new homes as opposed to the grassland area where their habitat has been home far longer. Thus, the abundance would be greater for the grassland area than the disturbed open space.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Jeu de données · Signal consensuel: Jeu de données
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,820
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,365

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1090,037

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,200 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreJeu de données

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFigshareMême sujetRangeland and Wildlife ManagementTravaux en français237 207