MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044094947 · doi:10.1890/130311

Pathway‐level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US

2014· review· en· W2044094947 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Leung, Michael Springborn, James Turner, Eckehard G. Brockerhoff

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytosanitary certificationBusinessValue (mathematics)Cost–benefit analysisPublic economicsEconomic impact analysisNatural resource economicsEconomicsBiologyEcologyComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive species policies are often directed at pathways of introduction, yet few analyses have examined risk at the pathway level. We synthesize the best available economic and ecological information surrounding International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No 15 (ISPM15), a pathway‐level international phytosanitary policy for treatment of wood packaging material. We highlight temporal factors for calculation of net benefits, emphasizing that while we cannot stop invasions, even delaying new arrivals results in substantial economic benefits. We show that policy implementation, although costly and yielding only moderate protection, can generate >US$11 billion in cumulative net benefits by 2050, averting the introduction of more pests than currently exist in the US. We also discuss the relative importance of different sources of scientific uncertainty and identify the most crucial data needs. This is the first pathway‐level economic risk analysis assessing the current scientific evidence for the net benefits of a phytosanitary policy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations88
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207