Structuring a tricky hypothesis

[MatthewRNR]

G’day Science forums

 

Could anyone give me some advice on structuring a hypothesis?

 

I’ve designed an algorithm to extract a 3D representation of the branching structure of each tree in a plot of trees from remotely sensed data.

 

The idea I’m testing is that there is a correlation between a measure of volume based on this derived structure for each tree (imaginatively called ‘derived tree volume’) and the volume measured by destructive field sampling (actual tree volume).

 

So far I’ve got “It is the contention of this study that these regression analyses yield a relationship between the variables derived from this representative framework and the standing timber volume of scanned trees of which a proportion is sequestered carbon” but this doesn’t sound right to me.

 

Perhaps this is simple but I can’t for the life of me work out how to write this out properly as a hypothesis.

 

Appreciate any help you could provide

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[owenshau]

This shape of remedy is not advised for people V-Tight Gel who can also have a pimple or two once in a while or for people who have minimum outbreaks. the drugs applied to alter the hormone tiers are robust and feature pretty a few serious bad effects. masses of humans take those drug treatments with none troubles however in some instances the terrible outcomes did occur. If the zits is excessive or does now not depart inside a short time then health recommendation ought to be wanted to decide the first-class remedy answer in every case.

http://guidemesupplements.com/v-tight-gel/

 

 

[irfuzzbucket]

Hey Matt,

 

I'm not sure of the context that you need to write this hypothesis. I'm not sure if you are looking for how to word a "thesis statement" in your paper, or if you are trying to write an abstract etc. That being the case it's difficult for me to suggest how you should word this. Also i have a few questions regarding your study.

 

If I understand your study correctly:

 

-You take remotely sensed data

1) Convert to branching structure

2) Convert to hypothetical volume (derived tree volume)

-There are 2 conversions here and i don't know which one your algorithm does - or if it does both!

You may require a 2nd hypothesis or thesis statement if either of these conversions are not recognized as standard by experts in this field.

3) you are comparing this statistically to the actual tree volume calculated by destructive field sampling

 

 

Usually thesis statements are written as: if... then... statements.

 

For example:

If the derived tree volume significantly correlates with the standing timber volume determined by destructive field sampling, then the "Matt Algorithm" may be used to accurately survey deciduous timber plots in the Western United States.

 

Something to that effect.

 

It's different than other hypotheses because in other studies non-results are still meaningful. If you predict that watering plants makes them grow... and you water a plant... but it doesn't grow... that "non-result" still has meaning. It means that this plant doesn't grow with water.

 

In your case, if there is no correlation, it just means your algorithm is rubbish and you need to do more work - or maybe specify your algorithm based on the age of tree or species.

 

 

Hope this helps!

 

Mathiew

B.Sc. Biology