MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398205226 · doi:10.14746/biorc.2008.9-10.3

Invasive plants in North America: a view from Ukraine

2008· article· en· W4398205226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.S. Mosyakin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Research and Conservation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyEcologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A biogeographical approach requires studying invasive plants within their native and synanthropic ranges, which has implications for the general theory of invasiveness and prediction/prevention of invasions. Many plant species native to Eastern Europe, and Ukraine in particular, are currently invasive elsewhere, including North America. However, ‘weed exchange’ between North America and Eastern Europe remains insufficiently studied, as well as its ecological factors. A preliminary assessment and analysis have been made of lists of plant species officially recognized as invasive in the US and Canada (national and state/province levels) and native to Ukraine. There are at least 120 such species, including 84 most important taxa shortlisted for the analysis. Some of them belong to taxonomically complicated groups (species of Euphorbia, Centaurea, Vincetoxicum etc.) and are among worst invaders (species of Centaurea, Lepidium, Euphorbia, Lythrum etc.). Families Asteraceae and Poaceae are most numerously represented (16.7% and 10.7%, respectively). A research overview for a comprehensive analysis of native Ukrainian plants considered invasive in North America is outlined, including aspects of their ecology, taxonomy, geography, patterns of invasions and invasiveness factors (based on phytoindication approaches and climatic models), and possible implications for biocontrol.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Research and ConservationSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207