Bibliographic record
Abstract
While invasive plant species have dramatic and varied effects, this paper examines the focus of this symposium on their “threat to native biodiversity and ecosystems”. This claim implies that there is (i) an enduring something, (ii) it is native, and (iii) it is under threat from invasive species. I examine these implications in turn, first considering the role of the observer in invasion biology, particularly in preferring a nature characterized by stability rather than flux. Second, I examine the concept of “native” given that humans are thoroughly embedded within natural ecological systems. Third, I demonstrate how our exclusion of humans conditions us to consider invasive species a primary threat rather than one among many interacting causal agents of global change; in particular, recent evidence indicates that these agents, which include human-caused disturbances and global warming (not to mention human population growth and global trade), may overwhelm the effects of invasive species per se. For these and other reasons, some ecologists have argued that ecological change is inevitable and that our concerns about invasive species are unjustified. I discuss these issues and suggest ways for ecologists to conduct engaged research through appropriate advocacy and engagement with stakeholders dealing with local invasive species. Key words: Advocacy, culture, philosophy of nature, sociology of science
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".