The Affects of Competition for Resources and Sunlight Exposure on Plantago major (Common Plantain) Size At York University's Danby Grassland
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The dataset was collected on two separate days, it was collected on Monday October 19th, 2015. and Monday October 26th, 2015. The sampling took place at Danby grassland at York University in Toronto, Ontario between 3:00- 5:00pm. The weather conditions of the location on both days was windy and sunny and the temperature ranged from 10-14 . The experiment was done in groups of 4 which included Aziza, Sahar, Paula and Shahana. The purpose of this experiment was to observe if competition and distribution of resources, among plants affects plant size by using different sampling techniques. This experiment consisted of recording average leaf size, crowding, number of Common Plantain plants, total number of leaves, number of leaves in sunlight and sunlight percentage. The plant was identified by its oval leaves and a quadrat was used to sample the distribution of Common Plantain plants. The quadrat was placed randomly on the grassland 70 times on the first day and another 70 times on the second day. A total of 140 replicates was collected on both days. For each plant, the size of the leaves was determined by measuring from where the stem attaches to the leaf of the plant to the tip of the leaf. This was measured in inches using a measuring tape and the leaf sizes were averaged for each plant being observed. Crowdedness of the plant was determined by observing the amount of other plant species surrounding the Common Plantain. A scale was used which was 0=no other plant species, 1=very little plant species, 2= quite a lot of other plant species and 3= lots of other plant species. Sunlight exposure which was a percentage was determined for each individual plant, by dividing the number of leaves exposed to sunlight by the total number of leaves. This was then multiplied by 100 to get a percentage. There was not a large abundance of Common Plantain plants at the location which is why for some of the replicates there was no data. Low temperatures could have played a role which limited the abundance of Common Plantain in the grassland.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».