Data used to support a meta-analysis investigating ecological effects of urban lawn management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data supports a meta-analysis investigating ecological impacts of intense lawn management (mowing). Raw data on invertebrate abundance and temperature data was collected by Léonie Carignan-Guillemette (2018) and Caroline Turcotte (2017) under the supervision of Raphaël Proulx and Vincent Maire (refer to Appendix S1 within related publication for more information). Other data was gathered and processed according to the following: We searched the Scopus database on 8 February, 2019 with the following combinations of keywords: (lawn OR turf) AND mowing AND (urban OR city). Generally, studies were ineligible when: full-text of the article was not available even after contacting the authors; mowing was incidental to the study and not an experimental factor; response variables were not ecologically relevant; confounding factors (e.g. fertilisation) could not be isolated; a non-urban context was used; or simulated data were presented. We extracted the mean and statistical variation (standard deviation or standard error) for each response variable in control (less-intensively mown) and treatment (intensively mown) groups. Reported data were used when available. Otherwise, data were extracted from published figures using the Web Plot Digitizer tool. Where summary data on median, and interquartile range was presented, mean and standard deviation was estimated. Variables with multi-temporal data (e.g. soil moisture) were summarised using the mean and pooled standard deviation to provide an aggregated value per site per year. Where seasonal trends were evident in raw multi-temporal data (e.g. soil temperature), data was detrended using a polynomial function and analysis applied to the residuals.
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 | 0.016 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.006 |
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".