Blogs

Orientation was a lot slower than I thought it'd be. I spent most of it with my friend, Erin, who also came from BCC. It started out okay even though I had to wait for Erin because not only was she running late but she also didn't know where we had to go, yet somehow we managed to get her checked in on time. The talks were not really that interesting because I'd already heard most of it before but what was slightly cool was that the officer from UMPD was giving out laundry bags fro people who had questions at the end. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a good questions to ask until an hour after it was over so I didn't get one. The next part was the tour which was more tedious than informative because everytime we stopped, we were in the open so they pretty much gave the sun permission to cook us alive throughout the tour. The only redeeming part of the tour was that they said something along the lines of somewhere in the tenth floor of the library, we could go for help for finding interships or something along those lines. We ate food afterwards in the Franklin Dinning Commons, and I've actually only ever eaten in the Berkshire Dinning Commons so that was pretty good. Finally (after 35 minutes after it started because the bio group was so big it got split into two sections), it was time for the moment that I was waiting for the most, signing up for classes. They had a small sticky note with the classes they believed we should take and mine had Genetics, Physics II, and Calculus for Life Sicences. I looked at it and thought okay that's not bad and started attempting to sign up with the help of an advisor. This is where most of my hopes were flushed down the drain. First we started with Genetics since it was at the top of the list, the advisor taught me how to look for a class and enroll so we got that out of the way prettty easy. Next we tried enrolling me into the Genetics lab, but when we tried enrolling me it gave us an error saying that it was full (luckily everyone got this error so it was overriden). That marked the first of my torubles when signing up for classes. After that we tried Calculus and this was also full, but the funny thing is that now literally a day later all the sections have at least 3 open spaces. Instead, I ended up taking res econ which is a stats class. We then tried getting me into Physics II, and when we looked it up there was only one section and it was open, however, it was during the same days and in the exact same time slot as Genetics so I was given a choice on which one I wanted to take and I ended up choosing Genetics. Since I couldn't get into 2 of the 3 classes they recommended I tried to get some of my bio electives out of the way. With my luck though, all the classes I had an eye on for sounding interesting like, Histology, Physiology, Cellular and Molecular biology, etc. were either full or deemed too high level. I had to settle for either Ecology or a class on Evolution and I chose Evolution. Finally because I didn't want to only have 12 credits despite that still being full-time, I decided to take Intro to Italian Culture. That sums up my Umass Orientation Day

Both figures came out very similar that I think either will get the same point across but some of the differences I observed were having the photos in a different order in the figure. Three of the photos are also being viewed from an upside down perspective with two of them missing arrows to direct you to the affected leaf. The picture with the ruler for scale is measuring a different section of the leaf giving a different reading. The photos are also taken from a different zoom level being further out for the two pictures of the leaf and a more zoomed in level of the map and about even level for the full plant. The figure itself has spaces between each photo and a slightly different size text label in each corner.

      There were 8 differences between the original and replicate figures that I noted. 1: The plant that was the subject of the original study was a garden nasturtium. The Replicate study was done using a long leaf plant that I cannot identify. 2: The scale image sizes were taken at different focal positions. This makes the replicate image have less detail than the original. 3: The central map position was not alike in the two figures. 4: The original was a broader scope and the replicate was much narrower and did not have the same center. 5: The figures were identified with lowercase letters in the original however the replicate used uppercase. The 6: The order of the figures was not the same. The original “a” was the full plant picture, “b” was the close-up showing the leafminer activity accompanied by a dollar bill for scale reference, and “c” was the map of the location that the study was conducted. The replicate “A” was the close-up with the dollar bill used for scale, “B” was the full plant photo, and “C” was the map of the study location. 7: The color and direction of the arrow pointing to the subject area were of different size, color and orientation. 8: Font sizes were different on the image labels. The original used a smaller (40) font and the replicate had approximately a 60. Although these studies were done on different plants I think the overall project was a success at documenting leafminer activity on the UMass campus.    

1. Wrong plant
2. Close up size
3. Map location
4. Map cropping
5. Lower case vs upper case for figure id
6. Out of order
7. Color of arrow
8. Font size

Using labels can make a multipanel figure easier to follow. I selected the text tool to mark each panel of the figure with a letter. Using the letter 'a', I created a label for the first panel in my figure. To create labels 'b' through 'd', copy and paste were used next. A font size of 144 was used to make my labels visible on my panels. I used the fill and stroke tool to create a black outline around each letter. The internal color was white. Starting in the upper left corner, I labeled each photo 'a' through 'd' moving in a clockwise direction. I positioned each letter flush with the corner and used the shift and arrow keys to move them two spaces to the right and two spaces down.

My experience at orientation was terribly frightening. I spent the day accompanied by my two friends Sage and Rebecca, and accompanied their orientation for the college of natural sciences, after all chemical engineering is just a bastard child of math and chemistry (their two majors) anyways. we started by attending all of the presentations on camus life and diversity before roaming about the campus. The fact I was not with my group did not impact the tour, as mostly the same areas were presented to the groups, the true trouble began after lunch. I had escorted the both of them to whitemore in order to get their id's made without having to wait in line, but then I had to escort them to their scheduling appointments. The building for the natural science scheduling was at a much closer location than that of the engineering students. I had also never been to the engineering lab and so I got lost in the nearby buildings as it was difficult to identify which buildings were which. When I did arrive, I was late for the presentation on engineering. I was, however, on time for the scheduling appointment. Because I wasnt present, my worksheet had gotten lost in a "no show" pile, which caused me to wait longer than other students. When I was finally ready to talk about my future classes, we had realized that I was missing two vital prerequisites, mathematic modelling and thermodynamics 2. I was unable to take any class other than those and physical chemistry, but then I would be unable to take any classes in the spring because of the classes I would miss this fall. Falling back on my strong academic record, I was able to reach out to the teachers of the courses and get the prerequisites waived, so that I could fully and properly attend next semester.

Differences Between Two Multipanel Figure:

My first observation between the two different multipanel figures is the arrangement of the photos. In my multipanel figure, the image of the entire plant is in the upper left hand corner. In the recreation, the image of the entire plant is on the right. Photo A represented my entire plant in my multipanel figure. In the recreation photo B is the whole plant.

    I am also observing that the placement of the arrow is different in both multipanel figures. The arrow in my multipanel figure is pointing to the affected leaf in relation to the entire plant in photo A. In the recreation, photo B, the arrow placement is pointing to the leaf miner tracks on the individual affected leaf.  In the original multipanel figure, there is also no hand included in the photo. The penny to show scale in simply laid upon the affected leaf. In the recreation, the person doing the recreation is holding the penny rather than laying it on the leaf. 

    Another difference between the figures is the area covered in the image of the maps. In the original, the map that is included in the multipanel figure covers a much larger portion of the campus. In the recreation, the map is pretty much zoomed into the exact area that is being looked at. 

    The last difference that I am observing is the case of the letters used to label each piece of the multipanel figure. In my multipanel figure I used lowercase letters and in the recreation uppercase letters were used. 

Differences for photo of entire plant:

1. Concrete walkway is visible in the recreation but not in the original

2. Mulch walkway is visible in the original but not the creation

3. Angle of the lily is different in both photos

4. Arrow is pointing to the affected leaf of the plant on the original but not the recreation

5. There are purple flowers that are further right on the original rather than closer to the center in the recreation.

6. The curvature and positioning of the leaves are different in each photo

7. In the original photo the whole plant is denoted as letter A, in the recreation it is B.

Differences for photo of individual leaf in both photos:

1. The positioning and appearance of the leafminer track is different in each photo

2. There is damage on the leaf in the recreation that is not evident in the photo of the original. 

3. The recreated photo is larger than the original

4. There are more leaves in the background in the original rather than the creation.

5. There is an arrow in the recreation that is not in the original.

6. In the original photo the individual leaf is letter B, in the recreation it is A.

Differences in the picture to show scale:

1. A hand is in the recreation but not the original. 

2. The leafminer tracks in the recreation are different than the tracks in the original.

3. The photo of the leaf in the original is at a different position than the leaf in the recreation.

4. You can see blacktop in the recreation photo that is not visible in the original.

5. There are more leaves visible in the original than in the recreation.

6. The letter on the original photo is c and lowercase. On the recreation it is an uppercase D.

7. There are brown marks on the leaf with the leafminer tracks on the recreation but not the original. 

8. You can see blacktop in the recreation that is not visible in the original.

Differences in the map picture:

1. There are more buildings visible in the original map compared to the recreation.

2. There are more roads visible in the original map compared to the recreation.

3. The letter on the original map is a lowercase d and on the recreation it is an uppercase C. 

Inferences Made for photo of entire plant:

1. Photo was taken further away in the recreation or plant is larger. 

2. Photo is of a different plant.

3. The instructions on how to notate each photo with a letter were unclear or not followed correctly.

Inferences made for photo of individual leaf:

1. They are different leaves

2. The recreation photo was taken from a closer distance than the original.

3. I either instructed the person doing my recreation to place an arrow on the wrong photo or they made a mistake in reading my directions.

4. The instructions on how to notate each photo with a letter were either unclear or not followed correctly. 

Inferences made for photo showing scale:

1. The photos are not of the same leaf or plant.

2. I did not instruct the recreation person to remove their hand or they did not follow the directions properly,

3. The angle of the camera when taking the photo is different or this is a different plant in the recreation that is closer to where the blacktop starts.

Inferences made for map picture:

1. Map is cropped differently or zoomed in closer.

-Same four types of photos the plant, the leaf, the leaf with a scale and the map but in a different order.
-Three photos are in an upside down view.
-Recreation does not have any arrows.
-The ruler scale is measuring two different parts of the leaf.
-The zoom level of the pictures are further out for the leaf closer for the map and equal for the full plant
-Has spaces between the pictures in the figure.
-Map view only shows the pond.
-Different text size for the labels in each corner of the picture.

Differences will be described as solely in the replicate
General differences - the letter blocks for the photos are smaller, the arrow head is much larger, and the length of the arrow appears smaller The garden hose is much less present. The plant is much worse shape. The space between photo's is larger and a different color.

Photo A - The hand is in more of the photo, the bottom 2 fingers are not curled, the angle of the photo is such that the wall is visable, the photo is further away in general, The underside of the top leaf is visable, the top leaf isnt being held down by the thumb,

Photo B - The angle the photo was taken from is slightly too far to one side causing the wall to be far more crooked, and taken signifigantly farther away

Photo C - the card used for scale is a different color and much more present, more of the hand holding the card can be seen, the leaf is much darker which allows the galleries to be seen more easily in the photo, the photo is very similar as though its just a shot more to the left, the other leaves cannot be seen

Photo D - The image isnt as streched, the magnification is different, all of the buildings around the sahde tree laboratory are visable

The biggest difference between the original and the replicate is the actual plant. I did name the plant with the hope that whoever was going to attempt my methods would be able to find it. Future projects perhaps I will use a latitude and longitude plus a description of the plant not just the type of plant. Next glaring difference between the two is the size of the plants in the image. This may have been due to different cameras or the distance from the subject the picture was taken. I should have specified the distance from the subject the camera was held plus the type of camera that was used. The map sizes and subject area are also different. I suppose I could have described that in better detail too. The letters are different sized. The original was lower case while the replicate was upper case. I failed to mention this in my methods paper. The replicate is missing an arrow pointing at the area that the leafminer activity was observed. This was in the methods paper however it was overlooked for some reason. The font and color is the same for the image labels at least. The position of the dollar bill was not consistent between the original and replicate. This too was not clear in the paper describing how the images were selected. It is difficult to get someone to duplicate your pictures by simply describing how you did it. The paper had a lot of detail describing how the panel was made, but not enough detail about the where and how the images were produced. I think that a third set of eyes would have been beneficial to assist with the editing of the paper. The order that the panels were organized could have been better. After looking at it I think that it may have been better if I labeled the map as “a”, then the full plant as “b”, and the final close up as “C”. This would have given it a zooming in flow that would have been easier to describe. A better description of the positioning of the dollar bill would have eliminated the guesswork for that piece too. This was a great lesson on how much different individual perceptions really are.