Plant Height Symphyotrichum ericoides and Solidago Canadensis in relation to distance to water source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment explored primarily if there was a correlation between plant height and distance from the closest water source. The experiment was conducted at York Univeristy, three bodies of water were chosen in the relative vicinity. Stong Pond, Village Pond and Black creek were the three locations to ensure that if any variation was found it was due to the factors observed.After the three locations were chosen, through observation and finding out which plants grew at all the locations, Symphyotrichum ericoides and Solidago canadensis were chosen, Symphyotrichum ericoides more commonly known as white aster and Solidago canadensis known as goldenrod or Canadian golden rod. The experiment was performed on the 1st, 8th and 15th of October 2015 at 2:30 each time. All three locations were visited each data collection day. The group of 4 visited each location together to lower inter-observer variability. The materials used were two transects and a quadrate. One transect would be placed from the water’s edge to 15m. The three distances observers were the distance where the bank ended and plants began to grow, for this experiment it was approximately 3m for each water source, 12m and 15m. The bank that was most accessible was chosen so we could safely conclude the experiment, a distance of 10m was measured along the water edge (vertically) and through an Excel random number generator worksheet, the number chosen would be where the transect would be placed horizontally away from the water. At each distance, the random number generator would be used to designate the location of where the quadrate would be placed. Within each quadrate, the abundance and height of Symphyotrichum ericoides and Solidago canadensis were recorded.To average the height, 5 samples were taken per plant species per quadrate. The second transect was used to measure the heights.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".