MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950544212 · doi:10.1111/aen.12162

Advance, retreat, resettle? Climate change could produce a zero‐sum game for invasive species

2015· article· en· W1950544212 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Stephens, Lloyd D. Stringer, D. M. Suckling

Bibliographic record

VenueAustral Entomology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperate climateBiosecurityClimate changeSubtropicsRange (aeronautics)PrecipitationGeographyEcologySpecies distributionAridEnvironmental scienceBiologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change will alter the threats presented by invasive species. Increasing temperatures and changing precipitation regimes will likely simultaneously improve the suitability of a region for some species while decreasing it for others. We demonstrate the zero‐sum game nature of these changes by modelling the changes to the projected distribution of 13 tropical and subtropical Tephritidae species in cities in Australia and New Zealand using published CLIMEX models. Under current climate conditions, tropical and warm temperate cities were suitable for more species than arid or cool temperate ones. All New Zealand cities increased in suitability, while Australian cities show more variable responses. The changes that occur under climate change are in line with the expectation of species ranges moving into higher latitudes but are also influenced by changes to the precipitation regime. With climate change, the nature of biosecurity threats will alter, the range of species able to survive in cool temperate regions is likely to increase with decreases in species ability to survive in tropical regions. Biosecurity agencies will need to respond to changing geography of threats.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustral EntomologySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207