MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114059488 · doi:10.1614/ipsm-08-063.1

Characterizing Pathways of Invasive Plant Spread to Alaska: I. Propagules from Container-Grown Ornamentals

2008· article· en· W2114059488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffery S. Conn, Casie A. Stockdale, Jenny C. Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueInvasive Plant Science and Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsPropagulePotting soilOrnamental plantHerbaceous plantSoil seed bankWeedAgronomyGerminationEnvironmental sciencePottingBiologyInvasive speciesPlant ecologyAgroforestryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To determine the extent and nature of container-grown plant soil as a pathway for introduction of exotic plant species to Alaska, soil from container-grown ornamentals was obtained from vendors and was incubated in the greenhouse. Fifty-four plant species were identified growing in containers or germinating from the soil, and included Canada thistle—a prohibited weed in Alaska—and nine other species listed as invasive in Alaska. The number of species and estimated seed bank were very low for soil from vegetable starts/herbs and herbaceous bedding plants (< 2 seedlings/L soil), but was greater for soil from containers containing woody plants, especially balled and burlapped ornamentals (20 seedlings/L soil). Container alien plant seed bank size was strongly related to type of soil. Potting (soil-less) soil contained 1.2 germinating seeds/L, soil-based soil 5.5 seeds/L, and mineral soil 18.7 seeds/L. Growers and vendors were variables that also influenced the size of the container seed bank, suggesting that weed management practiced during production and at the point of sale can greatly influence seed banks of ornamental containers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvasive Plant Science and ManagementSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207