Collecting data in the pond area and impermeable space for York University 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description: · Following experiment was taken on October 26th, 2016, at York University for Ecology 2050. The data was gathered in both pond and impermeable space. The experiment took place from 2:45pm-4: 15pm, in clear weather conditions. The temperature ranged from 6-7 degrees Celsius. Data was collected in the pond area, followed by being collected in impermeable space (Baseball diamond). (The pond: 2:45-3:30pm, impermeable 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 pond and impermeable space. Every 2 meters along the transect, a 1mx1m quadrat was randomly placed (~1 meter from the transect) and number of exotic and native plants, and number of flowers was counted. 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 pond and impermeable 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 pond area and impermeable 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 pond area and impermeable 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 pond area and impermeable area 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, bugs and snails. · Abundance.vertebrates observed, consisted of birds (including Seagulls and ducks). · Abundance.human was separated from the rest of the vertebrate species not part of our lab. · Vertebrate.richness is the number of different species represented in a given landscape or region. Person 4 – Invertebrates (Noyell Sakthikumar) · 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)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.141 | 0.042 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".