The Affects of Competition for Resources and Sunlight Exposure on Plantago major (Common Plantain) Size At York University's Danby Grassland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dataset was collected on two separate days, it was collected on Monday October 19th, 2015. and Monday October 26th, 2015. The sampling took place at Danby grassland at York University in Toronto, Ontario between 3:00- 5:00pm. The weather conditions of the location on both days was windy and sunny and the temperature ranged from 10-14 . The experiment was done in groups of 4 which included Aziza, Sahar, Paula and Shahana. The purpose of this experiment was to observe if competition and distribution of resources, among plants affects plant size by using different sampling techniques. This experiment consisted of recording average leaf size, crowding, number of Common Plantain plants, total number of leaves, number of leaves in sunlight and sunlight percentage. The plant was identified by its oval leaves and a quadrat was used to sample the distribution of Common Plantain plants. The quadrat was placed randomly on the grassland 70 times on the first day and another 70 times on the second day. A total of 140 replicates was collected on both days. For each plant, the size of the leaves was determined by measuring from where the stem attaches to the leaf of the plant to the tip of the leaf. This was measured in inches using a measuring tape and the leaf sizes were averaged for each plant being observed. Crowdedness of the plant was determined by observing the amount of other plant species surrounding the Common Plantain. A scale was used which was 0=no other plant species, 1=very little plant species, 2= quite a lot of other plant species and 3= lots of other plant species. Sunlight exposure which was a percentage was determined for each individual plant, by dividing the number of leaves exposed to sunlight by the total number of leaves. This was then multiplied by 100 to get a percentage. There was not a large abundance of Common Plantain plants at the location which is why for some of the replicates there was no data. Low temperatures could have played a role which limited the abundance of Common Plantain in the grassland.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".