Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data for “Perimeter and Non-Perimeter Woodlot Maple Trees” was collected over a two-day collection period at the woodlot area at York University-Keele Campus in Toronto Ontario. The first day of data collection took place on Friday October 17, 2014 from 15:00-15:45. Weather conditions included heavy cloud cover, moderately windy conditions and a temperature of approximately 10 degrees Celsius. Researchers wanted to study the relationship between the relative location of adult maple trees in the woodlot area and the canopy abundance during the autumn season. Researchers proceeded to explore additional abiotic variables that may affect the number of leaves remaining on the tree. Alongside to leaf abundance (%) and relative location of the tree, researchers observed and recorded six additional variables, including: tree height, girth of trunk, soil pH, moisture level, canopy exposure to direct sunlight and leaf colour. On the first day of data collection, researchers observed ten randomly selected “perimeter” adult maple trees found along the southern edge of the woodlot area and ten “non-perimeter” adult maple trees. Any maple tree that fell within a 2-metre radius from the outer edge was considered “perimeter” tree, while any maple tree that fell beyond an 8-metre radius from the outer edge was considered “non-perimeter”. The second day of data collection took place on Friday October 24, 2014 from 15:00-15:45. Weather conditions included fairly clear skies, light cloud cover and a temperature of approximately 12 degrees Celsius. On the second day of data collection, researchers observed ten randomly selected “perimeter” adult maple trees found along the northern edge of the woodlot area and ten “non-perimeter” adult maple trees. The same criterion to distinguish perimeter from non-perimeter trees was employed. The same researcher determined the relative height of each tree in all sets of data collection by observation. Simple qualitative descriptions of tree height were recorded for each tree. The girth of each tree at researcher breast-level was measured and recorded using a transect tape for each tree. A simple litmus paper test was employed to measure the pH of the soil immediately surrounding the base of the tree. Soil pH provides an indication of the nutrients and minerals that tree receives in its habitat. A small sample of soil was added to a container filled with distilled water, after which a strip of litmus paper was added. The pH value was obtained by comparing the resulting colour change on the litmus paper to given pH values. The exposure of the main canopy to direct sunlight was observed and recorded as a percentage by the same researcher across all datasets. The moisture level of the soil immediately surrounding the base of the tree was felt by touch and rated on a relative 0-2 scale, where 0 indicated “dry” and 2 indicated “wet”. The overall abundance of leaves on each tree was observed by the same researcher and recorded as a percentage. The leaf colour(s) on each tree were observed and recorded. General descriptions of colour were employed in describing leaf colour. Participating researchers included: Kristina, Naz and Yu.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".