Drafts

This article comes from a book called "Forty Studies that Changed Psychology" and is found in chapter 1, reading 4. The article reviews a study done by E. J. Gibson (et al.) on depth perception and avoidance in very young children. It begins with an introduction that provides some background information. This essay isn't critiquing the research, instead, it is providing a summary of the purpose, methods, results, a conclusion, and some real-world applications. I believe that it has done a decent job of doing so. However, it would have been helpful to include some visuals from the research paper itself. This isn't a review article because it doesn't evaluate the "primary source" and doesn't include other sources to support their opinion. Instead, it's purpose is to convey a single piece of information that is most important for the reader and their context. For instance, if someone is trying to learn more about how humans understand depth perception, they would read a summary article such as this instead of the entire research paper. The reader should not cite this article if they were to write a review article, instead they should find the primary source and use that instead. This is because, the author of this article has summarized what they think is most important. I think this goes along with the reason why you would cite a research poster if you were to write a review article because it just provides an orverview of what the author thinks you should know the most.

-        Pavlischek’s Focus: Pavlischek states that his focus in his argument is on child abandonment and neglect. More specifically, Pavlischek focuses on child abandonment and neglect. He argues that a man should be able to opt out of child care if a woman has the free will to opt out of a pregnancy (342).

1.      Analysis of Thomson’s View: Pavlischek examines Thomson’s analogies in the context of his argument for male choice in parental care.

-        Violinist Example: Pavlischek refers to Thomson’s violinist example where a woman wakes up to find herself providing life support for a famous violinist against her will. Pavlischek then points out 5 major components of the pro-life argument. With the pro-life argument in context, Pavlischek points out that Thomson does agree that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. However, with the violinist example, Pavlischek shows that Thomson does not agree that a person’s (fetus’s)r right to life outweighs a woman’s right to choice (343).

The plant I chose to photograph was the Camellia-Japonica Debutante, I photographed this plant in the Durfee Conservatory located across from Morrill 4 and is open from 10am to 4pm, Monday through Friday. The plant can be found in the Bonsai-Camellia house towards the right side of the room facing the window. The flower is a singular white plant surrounded by bushels of leaves and soil, similar to the structure of a grown tree. The photo was taken at 2:36pm when the sun was at the highest point for the day casting a ray of light across the room, the photo was taken in portrait form, with my hand gracefully holding the flower stem to capture the flower in its wholeness. I also captured the name of the plant which is labeled below the plant on a bench-like structure. To capture the name, I held my phone camera sideways to capture more of a landscape portrait and I stood above the label getting a top view of the name to capture everything in one shot.

This experiment focuses on an essential part of any experiment being conducted: the methods section. In this particular experiment, students were tasked with creating a multipanel figure consisting of three pictures, one picture of the entire plant, a close-up of the flower, and a map of the origin of the species. A methods section would be written to describe how the multipanel figure was created. From there another student would follow the procedure and post a replicate multipanel figure. The overall results are pretty similar in the orientation of the individual figures. However, as expected there are some differences between the two figures. When writing a procedure everything should be described as clearly as possible, including time of day the picture was taken, the type of font being used, and the figure size.The differences found in this experiment show that every detail is crucial and essential when describing how a procedure should be replicated.

In figure 1B, the scale shows the width and length of the flower, with a width of 2.5 inches. In figure 2B, the scale only shows the width of the flower, which had a width of 3.8 inches. The center of the flower in figure 1B also is pointing downwards, while in figure 2B the center of the flower is pointing upright and towards the camera. The flower in figure 2A appears smaller and has less layers of petals than the flower shown in figure 2B. In figure 1C, the map is smaller than the map shown in figure 2C. The upper half of the map and lower half of the map shows more of Antarctica and Greenland in figure 2C.

DIfferences were observed between the original figure and the figure replicated by following the given methods. Structural differences between the two figures were noted. In the replicated figure, there was no blank white space in between the separate panels, which was seen in the original figure. The letters labeling the different panels (A,B,and C) in the replicated figure are slightly larger and bolder as well as above and below the panels as opposed to on the sides. Differences were also seen between the content of the panels in the figure. In terms of differences in angles and distances of the panels, the flower shown in panel A of the replicated figure encompasses a larger surface area of the plant and is taken from a position lower and further to the right. The color of the flower in the replicate figure is also beige and appears to be more creased and drier as opposed to the yellow and pink flower color in the original. In panel b of replicated the replicated figure, more plants and pots are present in the background of the photo than the original. Also, the photograph was taken from an angle further to the right than the original. One of the flowers is also completely wilted and the two large leaves protruding from the stem of the plant appear to be resting at a lower angle and a lighter tinge of green than in the original figure. Panel C of the replicated figure does not include Brazil, Peru, and Bolivia as native countries of the Rhyncattleanthe Momilani species, while the original figure does.

In figure 1A, the picture of the entire plant, is a plant that has multiple branches stemming from the bottom of the plant and has many pink flowers on its leaves. In figure 2A, however, the plant has less branches that are visible and it does not have any pink flowers on its leaves. Also in figure 1A, the scale is shown as a blue line segment. In figure 2A, the scale is shown as a light green bracket. Figure 2A is also less clear and seems to have a noticeable glare on the top left. Lastly, the picture in figure 1A does not show the pot the plant is in and cuts off where the trunk of the plant ends. In figure 2A, the picture shows the pot the plant is in.

The Methods section of a scientific paper allows for the reproduction and verification of any given experiment. In order to do so, a carefully thought out narrative must be developed with clear explanation of materials and subjects, as well as experimental design including variables and controls and procedure. In this study we examined how to write an accurate methods section by having a peer follow a set of methods detailing the construction of a figure and subsequently comparing the two figure in order to determine the clarity and accuracy of the provided methods section.  Our findings show that small details, variables and controls not accounted for in the methods section of a paper can lead to deviations in the reproducibility of a given experiment. This is important for any scientific paper and provides it with legitimacy.

When looking at the entire figure, the font and size of the panel labels are not the same. The labels in figure 1 are bigger, bolder, and to the left of the pictures. The labels in figure 2 are smaller, in a different font, and on top of the pictures. The pictures in figure 1 also seem to be clearer than the pictures in figure 2. In addition, the pictures in figure 1 are more flush to the top and bottom of the figure and there is no horizontal space between figures A, B, and C. In figure 2, the pictures are not flush with the top and bottom of the figure and there is a horizontal space between figures A, B, and C.

    We tested the hypothesis that given a detailed and accurate methods section the construction of a figure could be repeated with precision. In order to test this, methods were provided for the construction of a figure to a peer without knowledge of the original figure in order to determine the efficacy of the methods in providing an accurate template for exact replication. We observed differences between the overall structure of the replicated and original figure in multiple areas. These results suggest that the provided methods did not take into account all possible variables as well as controls for the reconstruction of the figure.