Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transplantation to new locations is used widely to propagate horticultural and agricultural species but is also promoted as a means of relocating whole communities that stand in the way of development. It may be used as well to move vegetation from the field for experimentation under controlled conditions. Transplantation has not in the past been considered a reliable means of conserving threatened species or reproducing functional characteristics of natural communities, and has been regarded by many as highly ineffective. However, its potential must now be re-examined because of the many recent transplant attempts as well as advances in related fields. Recent trials illustrate that individual endangered species are still particularly difficult to transplant and displaced multi-species sods are almost always changed in the process. Exact reconstruction of communities from individual components is next to impossible because the full complement of species, including critical microbial components, is almost never known. Owing to a limited understanding of phenology, reproduction, functional roles, and interrelationships among constituent microbes, cryptogams, vascular plants, and fauna, transplants may be placed into sites with both biological and physical insufficiencies. Genetic diversity may be lost or, if genotypes from diverse sources are mixed, outbreeding depression may result. Recent advances in soil science, microbial ecology, and population genetics have in some cases improved the effectiveness of transplantation, but new insights mainly permit a fuller appreciation of the causes of failure. Home-site advantage has been demonstrated, and habitat protection appears to be the best and perhaps only reliable way of preserving intact natural communities and rare species. Furthermore, experimentation with vegetational mats under controlled conditions may have little relevance to natural ecosystems.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".