MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394081569 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1185745

York University Keele Campus’s WoodLot, Dataset #4

2014· dataset· en· W4394081569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prabhjot Benning

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2014
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyForestryEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For this afternoon field experiment, held on Monday September 22, 2014, data was collected throughout the York University Keele Campus’s woodlot from approximately 2:40PM - 5:15PM. The actual weather forecast (courtesy of http://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/toronto/m5g/september-weather/55488) for that time of day varied anywhere from as low as 7ᵒC to as high as 15ᵒC. With the use of transects tapes in the designated woodlot, the diameter (already in cm) of ten pairs of selected adult trees (White Oak) of the same species were measured at random from the centre of the adult trunk to its sapling (in meters and converted into centimeters) surface. Important to note was that the saplings were defined as trees that were no higher than relatively twice the height of an average student. As opposed to the grassland, the observable woodlot has an abundance and variation of not only living plant species, but also animals (insects, ladybugs, etc.) apparent in close proximity to each other. The execution component of the study was led by Taylor Noble in conjunction with a group of four males, one of which included myself. All four team members worked collectively as a unit to ensure the most accurate measurements pertaining to the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), in addition to the distance of its nearest sapling for each and every one of the ten adult White Oak trees scattered across the woodlot. As for the overall determination to the extent of canopy coverage as a percentage, I, myself exclusively took on the responsibility of this rough estimate to avoid any biased judgment(s). To make the data collection valid and convenient, we as a whole chose a tree species that is large, close to saplings, and fairly distinguishable from the diverse categories of tree types evident. For these reasons as well as due to the random dispersal of this tree type throughout the area, we as a group came to the conclusion of randomly studying ten pairs of adult White Oak trees (one adult for every sapling observed) that were a resemblance to one another.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.079

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→