MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472815584

Contribution to the Knowledge of Plant Diversity in the Malopolska Region. Focus on Invasive Plants in Kraków and Vicinity

2015· article· en· W2472815584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aleksandra Wagner, Dario Hruševar

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in life sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienInvasive speciesBiologyIntroduced speciesDominance (genetics)GeographyEcologyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper was to identify plant species around the water bodies and examine the possible impact of alien plants. Sixteen locations were examined referring to the vegetation and alien species in particular. The locations were the areas surrounding anthropogenic water bodies in Krakow and vicinity. Most of them were borrow pits left to the process of natural succession. Only one water body was of natural origin. In all the locations alien species were found. In total, alien species made 20.9% of all species found in these locations, which is slightly less than overall percentage in Poland (27.4%). There were 30 neophyte species found in total, six of them invasive transformers. One species – the bur marigold (Bidens frondosa) – was found in nine locations. Three species were found in eight locations: the Canada golden-rod (Solidago canadensis, ), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and annual fleabane (Erigeron annuus). Most neophytes (16 species), including the four mentioned above were of North American origin. 18 archaeophytes were found. Four species had uncertain status. Most alien species were covering less than 5% of surveyed vegetation plots. Only the cocksurn (Echinochloa crus-galli) covered more than 50% and the sweet flag (Acorus calamus) covered more than 25% (in both cases in one location). In urban areas, alien species are common, usually without making much problem (exceptions are allergy-causing plants), however in rural semi-natural areas the monitoring is recommended.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in life sciencesSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207