{"id":"W2073988666","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.017","title":"Managing invasive species: Rules of thumb for rapid assessment","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ecological Economics","topic":"Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":93,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"National Science Foundation","keywords":"Rule of thumb; Damages; Usability; Control (management); Invasive species; Balance (ability); Risk analysis (engineering); Environmental resource management; Computer science; Business; Management science; Environmental planning; Ecology; Economics; Biology; Political science; Geography; Artificial intelligence","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002540691,0.00008720563,0.000190122,0.00001881937,0.0001352749,0.000008684241,0.0001603653,0.00006783085,0.002998316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006227542,0.00007745633,0.00007553502,0.00002023092,0.0002208715,0.0001074722,0.0001531217,0.00006208201,0.0001594879],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002146736,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001197174,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000002325771,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0004619647,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993172,0.00002120552,0.0002491254,0.0002050939,0.00002489076,0.0001824413],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992839,0.0004372514,0.0001370658,0.0001003849,0.000006629715,0.00003475058],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009042412,0.0010701,0.4402103,0.00005629407,0.0002575496,0.000002941626,0.001032672,0.2197148,0.000684385,0.2937146,0.008277503,0.03488843],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006196669,0.0003068359,0.8806431,0.000003003307,0.00002167206,0.000001595154,0.0002978989,0.03691662,0.00024852,0.0606526,0.02008536,0.000203144],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9096202,0.00001712467,0.001235319,0.002231769,0.0001092175,0.0002567182,0.00001916538,0.00001697908,0.08649354],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9797146,0.0004052647,0.01789887,0.0007987393,0.00004819718,0.00005981033,0.00001039234,0.000005358042,0.001058738],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4404328,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9979131,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.01956002508314583,"score_gpt":0.2446468979535231,"score_spread":0.2250868728703772,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}