Visual Cognitive Characteristics of Canadian Subjects to several patterns of Pair Planting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to investigate how viewing a variety of pair-planting affects the psychological and physiological reactions of Canadian individuals. For this purpose, eye movement and impression evaluations results of 25 Canadian individuals were collected. The evidences from this study confirmed that Canadian subjects liked the pair planting pattern of globular tree of same form best, and their eye fixation distributed on relatively restricted area in each object tree but not the space between two trees. So, we considered the convergence of eye fixation in each tree of pair planting indicate the favorite degree of pair planting pattern in case of Canadian individuals. Moreover, Canadian individuals prefer globular paired trees combination rather than other patterns. Meanwhile, Canadian subjects disliked the pair planting pattern of fastigiated tree in different form most. Furthermore, eye fixation number and eye fixation duration were equally distributed to the two trees of those patterns who got like or normal evaluation. Contrarily, eye fixation number or eye fixation duration were unequally distributed to the two trees of those patterns who got dislike evaluation. Therefore, we could point out a relationship among favorite degree of pair planting pattern, eye movement, and general planting pattern in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".