{"id":"W4411446132","doi":"10.1002/ecog.07952","title":"A systematic review evaluating the performance of eDNA methods relative to conventional methods for biodiversity monitoring","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Ecography","topic":"Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":21,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Saskatchewan","funders":"","keywords":"Environmental DNA; Biodiversity; Species richness; CLARITY; Environmental resource management; Ecology; Abundance (ecology); Biology; Environmental science","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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01757311,0.001395056,0.005444266,0.01671657,0.0008194252,0.003532444,0.002468814,0.001845601,0.005383457],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1153814,0.0009509927,0.006318276,0.01643973,0.001422445,0.003496057,0.002002263,0.00123056,0.0005002193],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004626902,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0151706,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01028191,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03221693,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9801108,0.006867928,0.007136522,0.001356944,0.004225494,0.0003023771],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8861458,0.090284,0.01333615,0.001421801,0.008201868,0.0006104448],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"systematic_review","study_design_gemma":"systematic_review","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001029943,0.00001154849,0.001187305,0.9204823,0.005048561,0.0000876613,0.0002539175,0.0001366105,0.0001446202,0.0004946809,0.002363303,0.06968659],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006235818,0.0001042619,0.004178419,0.9300608,0.02850806,0.0002955402,0.0002530092,0.00007517902,0.0001915313,0.0004862788,0.03575532,0.0000292478],"study_design_candidate":"systematic_review","study_design_consensus":"systematic_review","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009006962,0.9964605,0.000499184,0.0004504643,0.0001662606,0.0002481653,0.0006443668,0.00001241025,0.0006179403],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.01026576,0.9859684,0.001886118,0.000700361,0.0000970484,0.0005362311,0.000391197,0.000011844,0.0001431564],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01757311,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09293664,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.09121869459910735,"score_gpt":0.4328872639162502,"score_spread":0.3416685693171428,"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."}}