Predicting the response of <i>Cabomba caroliniana</i> populations to biological control agent damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cabomba caroliniana is a submerged aquatic plant from South America that is becoming a serious weed worldwide. It spreads by seed and by fragmentation and has an extremely wide climatic range, invading lakes and ponds from tropical (Darwin, Australia: latitude 12°) to cold temperate regions (Peterborough, Canada: latitude 45°). There are currently no effective methods of managing cabomba infestations and funding has been allocated to research biological methods. Surveys have examined cabomba in its native range and have identified several potential biological control agents. The most promising are a stem boring weevil (Hydrotimetes natans) and an aquatic moth (Paracles spp.). Here we predict the change in cabomba populations after the introduction of the biological control agents. Our predictions are based on quantitative surveys of cabomba populations at three lakes in south‐east Queensland, qualitative observations of cabomba in its native range, and conceptual knowledge of how the realised niche of cabomba might be affected by herbivore damage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".