Exotic Earthworm Invasions in North America: Ecological and Policy Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthworms are the best known and, in many situations, the most important animals that live in soil. Over 3500 earthworm species have been described worldwide, and it is estimated that further surveys will reveal this number to be much larger (Reynolds 1994, Fragoso et al. 1999). Distinct taxonomic groups of earthworms have arisen on every continent except Antarctica, and, through human transport, some groups have been distributed worldwide (Jamieson 1988, Reynolds 1994). The earthworm fauna of North America, including Canada, the continental United States, Mexico, and the islands of the Caribbean, consists of both native (Nearctic and Neotropical) and exotic species imported from many other regions of the world (Fender 1995, Fragoso et al. 1995, James 1995, Reynolds 1995). Any given locality may be inhabited by all native species, all exotic species, a combination of native and exotic species, or by no earthworms at all. Relative abundance and species composition of local fauna depend greatly on soil, climate, vegetation, topography, land use history, and especially on past invasions by exotic species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".