MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214916575 · doi:10.1093/biosci/biab115

Planetary Biosecurity: Applying Invasion Science to Prevent Biological Contamination from Space Travel

2021· article· en· W3214916575 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Ricciardi, Phillip Cassey, Stefan Leuko, Andrew P. Woolnough

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency
KeywordsBiosecurityContext (archaeology)OrganismAlien speciesExtraterrestrial lifeEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementRisk analysis (engineering)BiologyInvasive speciesEcologyGeographyBusinessEnvironmental scienceAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As plans for space exploration and commercial use expand rapidly, biosecurity measures and risk assessments that inform them must adapt. Sophisticated protocols are required to prevent biological contamination of extraterrestrial environments from Earth and vice versa. Such protocols should be informed by research on biological invasions—human-assisted spread of organisms into novel environments—which has revealed, inter alia, that (1) invasion risk is driven by the timing and frequency of introduction events, whose control requires addressing the least secure human activities associated with organismal transport; (2) invasions and their impacts are difficult to predict, because these phenomena are governed by context dependencies involving traits of the organism and the receiving environment; and (3) early detection and rapid response are crucial for prevention but undermined by taxonomic methods that fail to recognize what is “alien” versus what is native. Collaboration among astrobiologists, invasion biologists, and policymakers could greatly enhance planetary biosecurity protocols.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207