You are here

Home

Blogs

Differences and Inferences

Submitted by mpetracchi on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:28

Figure 17.

Panel A Dif

Shadows

  • Time of day picture taken

Size of images/ stretching

  • Different cameras store pictures in different sizes so they won't be exact across phones. Maybe specific measurements were given that stretched the photos

Angles of pictures

  • Getting an exact match of distance and from what angle you took the picture is hard to communicate.

Font/ font size

  • One of the panels has a different label font because they forgot to change it. Size of fonts are different

Unaligned

  • Maybe the methods said to have a certain height/width which didn’t allow the image to fit right. Forgetting to scale it down

Panel B Dif

Shadows

  • Time of day picture taken

Size of images/ stretching

  • Different cameras store pictures in different sizes so they won't be exact across phones. Maybe specific measurements were given that stretched the photos

Angles of pictures

  • Getting an exact match of distance and from what angle you took the picture is hard to communicate.

Font/ font size

  • One of the panels has a different label font because they forgot to change it. Size of fonts are different

Panel C Dif

Shadows

  • Time of day picture taken

Size of images/ stretching

  • Different cameras store pictures in different sizes so they won't be exact across phones. Maybe specific measurements were given that stretched the photos

Angles of pictures

  • Getting an exact match of distance and from what angle you took the picture is hard to communicate.

Font/ font size

  • One of the panels has a different label font because they forgot to change it. Size of fonts are different

Panel D Dif

Shadows

  • Time of day picture taken

Size of images/ stretching

  • Different cameras store pictures in different sizes so they won't be exact across phones. Maybe specific measurements were given that stretched the photos

Angles of pictures

  • Getting an exact match of distance and from what angle you took the picture is hard to communicate.

Font/ font size

  • One of the panels has a different label font because they forgot to change it. Size of fonts are different

Different flower

  • Both were similar but not the same one. Describing exactly what to photograph is hard when your trying to pick out 1 element from many

Overall Dif

Image layout

  •  

Image sizing

  • The panels used on one figure are larger than the other, which may have happened due to lack of instruction 

Image spacing

  • Distance between the panels may have been changed manually and not noted or not properly aligned

 

 



Differences

What caused it

Shadows

Time of day picture taken

Size of images/ stretching

Different cameras store pictures in different sizes so they won't be exact across phones. Maybe specific measurements were given that stretched the photos

Different flower

Both were similar but not the same one. Describing exactly what to photograph is hard when your trying to pick out 1 element from many

Angles of pictures

Getting an exact match of distance and from what angle you took the picture is hard to communicate.

Font/ font size

One of the panels has a different label font because they forgot to change it. Size of fonts are different

Unaligned

Maybe the methods said to have a certain height/width which didn’t allow the image to fit right. Forgetting to scale it down

Figure comparison

Submitted by zalam on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:05

I compared the figures on page 27. The image quality for the first one is better than the second - it is quite blurry. The first one has a close up shot of B and was most possibly taken at night rather than the day – unlike B in the second figure. Part C is also a close up shot for the first figure unlike the second one – the first one shows a single tree while the second one shows multiple and is slightly more vague since it has a greater amount of background. There is relatively less moss in the second figure for D compared to the first figure. Part E in the second figure seems to be the same image as D, but perhaps another angle or area. On the other hand, E in the first figure looks different from D.

Categories and cause:

Image quality - The blurriness could be due to the software used - Inkscape vs. Word. It could also be caused due to the camera quality.

Time of the day - Part B of the first figure has darkness in the background indicating that the image could have been taken at night while the Part B for the second image may have been taken during the day.

Distance between the person and the object - The person making the second figure may not have been entirely sure of which tree was to be photographed and so they were further away when taking the picture for C, making it quite vague.

Different areas - The second figure had less moss in comparison to the first figure. The area could have been different.

Page 18 Figure Comparison

Submitted by damianszyk on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:04

The differences between the two scientific panels are the angles the picture is being taken from, the fliter or lighting between the pictures, the overall sharpness or quality of the pictures, and the labeling of the pictures between the two figures. The reason for the two different angles between the two figures may be due to a lack of description of how the orginal person took the pictures of the plants. One possibe way to fix this difference, for example, would be to say something like "get to eye level with the plants and take a photo." As for the differences in lighting, background, and overall sharpness of the pictures in the two figures, this may have been caused due to different cameras that were used to take the photos. The filter on the camera can also be another factor that could explain the differences between the two figures.

The two categories to separate the differences would be overall quality of the image and labelling of the pictures in each figure.

Quality of images:

  • Photos taken at different angles
  • Left figure has sharper images than the right figure
  • Different lightings, camera quality, or filter between the two figures

Labelling images in each figure:

  • Different fonts used
  • Figure right has a . after each letter

Observations/Inferences of Multifigure Panel 12

Submitted by asalamon on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:04

Observations

  • In all the images
    • letters are of different sizes
    • the letters are in different locations
  • In images A and B
    • the scope of the image is different, the left panel is from a closer perspective using google earth
    • the right figure uses pink arrows and the left does not use arrows
  • In image c
    • the light is different
    • the scope of the image is different as the sidewalk is visible in the left image
    • the angle of the picture is different as the library is in different positions of each picture
    • the quaility of the image is less in the right image
    • there is tent/event in the right image

Alternative catagories

  • formatting issues
  • phography method
  • scaling of images
  • timing of images

Factors:

  • lack of scaling
  • time of day
  • type of camera
  • perspective/location of camera
  • direction to taking the image

 

picture 9

Submitted by mlabib on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:04

Figure 1 and Figure 2 are the same building, however they are taken at different angles and potentially different sesons.

LETTER MIXING

I believe the person who recreated the multi-panel figure  (Person B)  mixed up his letter A with his letter B, compared to the methods of the original person A.

PICTURE TAKING

I also think that the recreator took the pictures of the building using a drone or something, not a 3D satellite map as the angle of the building is not the same as the Figure A. I think the picture of C is very well done, but could be a little closer, as the recreated image looks a lot further.

GRAPHICS 

I also noticed that the recreator put arrows in their figure, when the original person did not. Finally, I believe the original photo has used a bold A, B, C, in their font, while person B did not.

Perfect Paragraph 4

Submitted by dfmiller on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:04

The idea of a gay gene has been long debated and sought after among geneticists. After years of persecution and discrimination, some members of the LGBT community support such a search, in the hopes of scrapping the argument that their way of life is unnatural. Others vehemently oppose it, however, since they claim that it will only open up a worse form of discrimination. They believe that those who oppose same-sex relationships may be able to alter their children's genetic makeup if it is revealed they have a homosexual predisposition. In a recent international study, however, a single genetic marker for homosexuality now seems rather unlikely. What seems more likely is partial polygenic predisposition in conjunction with environmental factors. According to the study, only about 25% of human sexual behavior can be explained by genetics, with the rest being explained by environment and local culture. As with most behavioral patterns, a sole genetic linkage is often not the cause of these phenotypes. While this polygenic expression of phenotype allows for more diversity, it of course results in a much more difficult time deciphering the genetic origins of human and animal behavior.

Difference Between Multipanel Figures of Yellow Flowers (Figure 30)

Submitted by nskinner on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:04

The original set of photos has better image quality. The second set has some blurry photos. The flower in the orignal figure (a) has a larger center than the flower in the non-orginal figure (a) photo. The orginal panel figure (b) has a flower that has a larger center then the non-orignal panel b flower and it is taken at a different angle. The petals in the orignal photo of the photo labeled (b) has petals that are moving downward whereas the non-orignal figure b photo has petals that are more radial and sticking out making the whole top of the flower more circular rather than cone shaped. The photo looks like it was taken up closer than the original as well since the ruler looks bigger in the second photo than the original. The ruler is the same ruler it appears. The original figure (c) has the flower cone pointed towards the top right corner of the flower and the second photo has the flower pointing to the top left. The figure (d) in the original has almost no petals present in the photo. It looks like they all died back. The non-orignal photo has several flower heads that all have petals on them in the photo. Overall, at first glance they do all look similar but these difference set apart the orginal photos from the non-orginals. 

The emergence of technology and its effects on society.

Submitted by imadjidov on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:04

In the 1960s, there was a request for understanding the reach of right material to the right audience. During the segmentation phase of the U.S. market, businesses took advantage of radio and especially t.v. to sell their messages to the consumer. Advertising not only opened the consumer to a variety of information, but also enabled them to a greater variety of goods and services. The article points out that t.v. was the main method of choice for advertisement because it gave individual brands their very own identity. In the end, the introduction of the television to American families revolutionized the strategies of marketing. Television allowed marketers to apply their advertisements to a broad range of audience. This phase of U.S. marketing allowed for the one on one relationship of the seller and the customer. This close relationship strategy of the producer and consumer of the 1960s can be witnessed in the modern world. Today, the key function of social media is allowing more producers to interact with their customers. Social media is serving as a structure that not only producers, but also consumers to critique and rate back their service. This in sense is pushing companies and brands to question where they can improve their products and how they can go about it. 

 

Figure Comparison

Submitted by kheredia on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:02

Comparison to Picture 5



Differences

Factors that caused this difference

  • Figure 1 is on a cloudy day

  • Figure 2 is on a sunny day

  • Weather, (not controllable)

  • Figure 1 and 2 have entirely different colored labels

  • Maybe lack of description from the original owner of the pictures to the person who followed their methods because they are not even close to being the same

  • Figure 1 and figure 2 (a) panel are taken in different angles or possibly not the same tree?

  • In figure 1 there is a bush next to it and in figure 2 the bush is absent???

  • The building’s in figure 2’s (a) are not the same as figure 1’s.

  • Either the description was confusing, there wasn’t enough detail, or the person following the methods did not understand or know the names of the surrounding buildings which led them to take a picture of an entirely different tree

  • Figure 2’s (b) panel has leaves that are an entirely different color than figure 1’s (b). 

  • Figure 1 has yellow-ish leaves

  • Figure 2 has pure green leaves

  • The leaves could have easily changed color as they do so rather quickly or the person following the method’s just took a picture of the wrong tree

  • The person who wrote the methods may not have discussed the color of the leaves

  • Figure 1’s ( c ) panel looks similar to the one in figure 2, so they might be the same tree but in a different location because figure 1 background is concrete and figure 2 background is grass

  • The markings of the bark are almost identical so it must be the same species?

  • Same reason as #3

Comparison of Methods

Submitted by rbudnick on Fri, 09/27/2019 - 14:01

Potential broad categories could be presentation, and content.

Presentation includes details such as how the images are cropped, how they are oriented, lighting differences between the images, quality of the images, where and how markings such as arrows and labels are placed on the images.

Content includes details such as whether or not the images between the methods are the same and use the same object for comparison, how much of the plant is seen or cut off in each picture, the angle the pictures are taken from, the tools used for measurement included in the image for scale, and background seen in the pictures.

The lighting is different for each picture and the angles the plants are viewed from in image A are different. In image B, the measurements are taken from two different position on the leaf, one from the middle of the leaf (the left method) the other with the ruler along the side the leaf (the right method.) The leaves pictured in image B are not the same leaf. The leaves used in images C and D are not the same between the two methods. Image C has drastically different leaves in term of surface pattern. Image D has very similar leaves used but the location of phytophagy as labeled by the yellow arrows are very different. In the left method the arrow points to an area very close to the leaf margin, the right method has the arrow pointing close to the main vein on the opposite side of the leaf. Images C and D are taken close to the leaf in the left method, and noticeably farther away in the right method. 

Lighting and color of the images helped me make an inference on the time of day and weather for each method. This could also be due to a difference in camera. The lighting in the left method is much more white, and noticably less intense than in the method on the right. The method on the right shows very intense golden light, usually indicative of mid afternoon and earl evening where the sun has started towards setting. This leads me to believe that the pictures were taken at two different times. Despite the difference in light intensity, I infer that the images were both taken during sunny weather with clear skies, and shadows present on the leaves were a result of leaves around them and not from clouds.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - blogs