MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138951652 · doi:10.4102/koedoe.v46i2.54

A revised list of alien plants for the Kruger National Park

2003· article· en· W2138951652 on OpenAlexaff
L.C. Foxcroft, Lesley Henderson, Geoff Nichols, Bean Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueKoedoe · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsKruger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkAlienBiodiversityInvasive speciesGeographyAlien speciesIndigenousHabitatIntroduced speciesEcologyAgricultureHabitat destructionAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alien plants recorded in the Kruger National Park are listed, providing an update of species that have been recorded since the last published list in 1988. The serious consequences that invasive alien plants pose are widely recognised internationally and are regarded as the greatest threat to the Kruger National Park. It is extremely important to maintain an updated list of species to use as a reference and from which to monitor changes in the influx of invasive species. The list contains the invasive status of the plants, current impact, habitat types, biological control status and status according to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA), Act 43 of 1983, as amended in March 2001. The list comprises 370 species, of which 121 are invaders and two are transformer weeds, which may cause considerable damage and alterations to the indigenous biodiversity. A total of 91 species listed herein are also listed in the CARA regulations or are proposed additions to the CARA regulations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.022

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKoedoeSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207