Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the course of developing and delivering a management programme for Japanese knotweed ( Fallopia japonica ) the team involved had extensive interactions with the general public and journalists, both print and broadcast. The programme was unique in that the communication goal was not only getting across the message that the plant is a pest that needs management, but that a solution could be the introduction of a ‘beneficial pest’ – a difficult sell! This paper reviews the difficulties with getting these messages across, including those generated by journalists as well as those encountered with a general public with wide ranging levels of understanding and experience, instinctive reactions and lack of trust of scientists. In truth the job was relatively easy because Japanese knotweed has very few admirers or supporters and it was possible to build consensus that using another invasive species (albeit a specialist beneficial) was and remains a good idea despite this being a difficult novel concept to grasp. Japanese knotweed has a lot to teach us.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".