Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terms and definitionsRepetition: The amount of times the study is repeated at a novel park Quadrat: The 0.5m by 0.5m tool used and number of times placed per siteLocation: The sites of the studyDate: The specific time frame of recordingPlant species: The taxonomic classification of the plant identified with in the quadrat Classification: Native or Non-native categorization assigned based on whether the plant originated in North America or not according to scientific literature Number of individuals: The number of individuals accounted for of one specific species within a quadratPopulation density: The total number of a specific plant species within a specific quadrat divided by the area of the quadrat, 0.25m<sup>2</sup><br>Population density of native and non-native plant species in Toronto were taken at four different parks that were indicative of a typical Toronto park, these were Figrove Park and Topcliff Park measured on October 16<sup>th</sup> 2020 and Oakdale Park and Yorkwoods Park measured on October 17<sup>th</sup> 2020, with all data recorded in a field journal by hand. The forecasts were a temperature of about 10 ºC, mild winds and clear skies on October 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020, and a temperature of about 11 ºC, mild winds and partial clouds on October 17<sup>th</sup> 2020. First an outline of the parks was taken from google maps and divided into even boxes and assigned a number. A random number generator was used to determine 10 sites within each park that the quadrat would be placed. At the site, population density was measured by first identifying the species using the common weed species of Ontario field guide or the Newcomb’s field guide within a 0.5m by 0.5m quadrat for all 10 quadrats at each study site. Accounting for the individual species was conducted where if the species had more than 50% of its body within the quadrat, it was recorded but if it had less than 50% within the quadrat then it was excluded from recording. The population density was calculated by totalling the number of individuals within the specific quadrat it was found and dividing it by the area of the quadrat, 0.25m<sup>2</sup>. Classification of the plant species was given a native or non-native classification based on scientific literature. <i>Cirsium arvense</i> is classified as a non-native species according to Hodgson (Hodgson, 1968). <i>Taraxacum officinale</i> is classified as a non-native species as its origins are traced back to Europe according to Wirngo (Wirngo <i>et al</i>, 2016). <i>Plantago major</i> is classified as a non-native species as it is naturally found in Eurasia according to Hawthorn (Hawthorn, 1973). <i>Malva neglecta</i> is a non-native as its origins stems from Eurasia according to Makowski (Makowski and Morrison, 1989). <i>Ambrosia artemisiifolia</i> is native to North America according to Bassett (Bassett and Crompton, 1975). <i>Digitaria spp.</i> is a non-native species originally found in Eurasia according to Lundholm (Lundholm and Marlin, 2006). <i>Trifolium repens</i> is classified as a non-native species as it was originally introduced to the Americas from Europe according to Fraser (Fraser, 1989). Finally, <i>Solidago canadensis</i> is found natively in North America according to Yuan (Yuan <i>et al</i>, 2013). <br>
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.339 | 0.013 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".