Study on the Relationship between Ceratoides arborescens Population Spatial Pattern and Environment Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study the relationship between spatial distribution pattern of four habitat populations Ceratoides arborescens and environment factors by simi-variance analysis.The result showed that the semivariograms of population Ⅰ(Caragana microphylla Lam,Stipa breviflora,Allium polgrrhizum community)and population Ⅱ(Stipa grandis,Aremisa frigida,Cleistogenes squarrosa community) could be described as spherical and exponential model,the spatial distribution pattern showed aggregated,and the two habitats population are stabe.The semivariograms of population Ⅲ(Ceratoides arborescens and Stipa grandis community) and population Ⅳ(Ceratoides arborescens L.chinensis,Mesopnystil Herb community) could be described as linear model,the spatial distribution pattern showed random,and the two habitats population are increasing.The main ingredient analysis result showed that Ceratoides arborescens mean density,soil available nitrogen,soil available phosphorus,annual precipitation and intensity of human disturbance are the most factors for Ceratoides arborescens distribution pattern of fifteen environment factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".