False-positive errors are higher in field surveying of plants than many people may appreciate. Raising the threshold for the acceptance of an observation reduced false-positive observations dramatically, but at the expense of more false negative errors. There was no phylogenetic pattern to falsely observed species however, rare species are more likely to be false-positive as are species from species rich genera. Therefore, a person’s ability to correctly identify a large number of species is not a safeguard against the generation of false-positive errors. The number of errors varied considerably between people, some people create a high proportion of false-positive errors, but these are scattered across all skill levels. They were told beforehand that their final score would be the sum of the correct species they listed, but false-positive errors counted against their overall grade. The candidates were asked to list all the species they could identify in a defined botanically rich area. Surveys were conducted at sites with a verified list of vascular plant species. Here we characterise false-positive errors for a controlled set of surveys conducted as part of a field identification test of botanical skill. While it is common knowledge that these errors occur, there are few data that can be used to quantify and describe these errors. The presence of a species is easily overlooked, leading to false-absences while misidentifications and other mistakes lead to false-positive observations. PeerJ 5: e3324 Įrrors in botanical surveying are a common problem. Characterisation of false-positive observations in botanical surveys. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. I'll update the links in post #1 to refer to those links - thanks for finding them.2 School of Science and the Environment, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom DOI 10.7717/peerj.3324 Published Accepted Received Academic Editor Richard Cowling Subject Areas Biodiversity, Ecology, Plant Science Keywords False-presence, Habitat survey, Type 1 errors, Field identification, Shropshire, Phylogenetic signal, Sensitivity, Rarity, Specificity Copyright © 2017 Groom and Whild Licence This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. The 64-bit version of 5.16.3 you reference at CNet is identical to the one I have, which came from ActiveState's site. I'm not going to post the binaries as this might violate some ActiveState terms. Reinstalling 5.16 works fine, so I'd say the only option currently is that version. Version 5.18 does not have certain required modules available, so that's a no-go. Given the unfriendliness here towards anything not JScript or VBScript, I'm not hopeful this will get investigated or resolved. The 32-bit version of ActivePerl 5.20 causes DirectoryOpus to emit to the log the diagnostic "Script Engine 'perlscript' could not be opened". The 64-bit version of ActivePerl 5.20 causes DirectoryOpus 11.12.04 to crash upon selecting a perlscript rename script. there is a download-location on the forum somewhere where you can store 'your'ĪctivePerl? But likely that requires okay from the administrator. Maybe you can verify the checksums? Alternatively, maybe. Now, I don't know which versions you have available at yours. for 圆4 one might try it from CNet - ActiveState ActivePerl Windows (64-bit)ĭ/ActiveState-Ac. I am not sure whether the below files are 'reworked' (meaning: added trojans, malware, pups whatever)īut. If that is the case, then the below can be ignored. So, the latest version of Dynamic Renamer is indeed compatible with v5.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |