Temporal collections to study invasion biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological invasions represent an extraordinary opportunity to study evolution. This is because accidental or deliberate species introductions have taken place for centuries across large geographical scales, frequently prompting rapid evolutionary transitions in invasive populations. Until recently, however, the utility of invasions as evolutionary experiments has been hampered by limited information on the makeup of populations that were part of earlier invasion stages. Now, developments in ancient and historical DNA technologies, as well as the quickening pace of digitization for millions of specimens that are housed in herbaria and museums globally, promise to help overcome this obstacle. In this review, we first introduce the types of temporal data that can be used to study invasions, highlighting the timescale captured by each approach and their respective limitations. We then discuss how ancient and historical specimens as well as data available from prior invasion studies can be used to answer questions on mechanisms of (mal)adaptation, rates of evolution, or community-level changes during invasions. By bridging the gap between contemporary and historical invasive populations, temporal data can help us connect pattern to process in invasion science. These data will become increasingly important if invasions are to achieve their full potential as experiments of evolution in nature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".