MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567078033 · doi:10.1515/cdem-2015-0010

Invasion of Alien <i>Solidago</i> Taxa into Urban Habitats: A Study of Selected Towns in Southern Poland

2015· article· en· W2567078033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damian Chmura, Patrycja Dyba, Paulina Kraj, Natalia Peplińska, Agnieszka Pilorz, Mateusz Roman

Bibliographic record

VenueChemia, Dydaktyka, Ekologia, Metrologia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidago canadensisRuderal speciesHabitatInvasive speciesGeographyEcologyGenusBiologyBiodiversityTaxonIntroduced speciesAlienPopulationDemographyCensus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Poland there are three invasive species of the genus Solidago native to North America. In the years 2010-2015 field survey in five tows in Oswiecim Basin and its vicinity was performed which aimed to examine frequency, habitat preferences and basic parameters of populations of these species. Amongst invasive goldenrods S. canadensis (79 localities) and S. gigantea (74) prevailed in the study area and are much more frequent than S. graminifolia (8). Populations of goldenrods were not very abundant and did not occupy large area, however, there were populations exceeding 500 m 2 and that had more than 500 ramets except for S. graminifolia which occur at low densities. The Canadian goldenrod S. canadensis tended to occur more frequently in ruderal and segetal habitats than S. gigantea whereas S. graminifolia was encountered only at fallows. Both S. gigantea and S. canadensis were reported to occur in wetland habitats and sometimes formed monospecific stands what prove negative influence on biodiversity.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemia, Dydaktyka, Ekologia, MetrologiaSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207