Non-native plants observed in North America by 18<sup>th</sup>century naturalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writings of 18th century naturalists provide a rich description of the flora, agricultural practices, and ecological and cultural landscape during the migration of large numbers of European and African peoples to North America. We employed a mixed methods approach to: 1) compare the percentages of non-native vs. native plant species recorded by the naturalists; 2) quantify the relative frequency of non-native plant species across eastern North America; and 3) qualitatively evaluate descriptions of non-native plants. The writings from nine naturalists in the 1700s document the introduction and establishment of many non-native plants across the North America. Higher proportions of non-native plant species were reported by naturalists who spent more time in densely populated human settlements. Agricultural crops had the highest relative frequencies for non-native plants in the 18th century. Non-native plants were described as being used during daily activities by humans, undergoing cultivation, growing abundantly on the landscape, and having weedy growth characteristics. Several of the non-native plants observed in the 1700s have subsequently developed into invasive species, which threaten the conservation of native North American flora.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".