Are Modern Biological Invasions an Unprecedented Form of Global Change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uniqueness of the current, global mass invasion by nonindigenous species has been challenged recently by researchers who argue that modern rates and consequences of nonindigenous species establishment are comparable to episodes in the geological past. Although there is a fossil record of species invasions occurring in waves after geographic barriers had been lifted, such episodic events differ markedly from human-assisted invasions in spatial and temporal scales and in the number and diversity of organisms involved in long-distance dispersal. Today, every region of the planet is simultaneously affected and modern rates of invasion are several orders of magnitude higher than prehistoric rates. In terms of its rate and geographical extent, its potential for synergistic disruption and the scope of its evolutionary consequences, the current mass invasion event is without precedent and should be regarded as a unique form of global change. Prehistoric examples of biotic interchanges are nonetheless instructive and can increase our understanding of species-area effects, evolutionary effects, biotic resistance to invasion, and the impacts of novel functional groups introduced to naïve biotas. Nevertheless, they provide only limited insight into the synergistic effects of invasions and other environmental stressors, the effect of frequent introductions of large numbers of propagules, and global homogenization, all of which characterize the current mass invasion event.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".