MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404051727 · doi:10.56028/aetr.9.1.699.2024

The risk of dandelion invasion

2024· article· en· W4404051727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jieyi Zhang, Zhiyuan Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Engineering Technology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDandelionInvasive speciesEnvironmental scienceMediterranean climateEcologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dandelion originated in the Mediterranean coastal region, under suitable conditions, its seeds can spread and spread with the wind, and there are a large number of seeds. This article uses the WINDISPER-L model to analyze the propagation distance of seeds under different settling rates, settling heights, and wind speeds. And it was considered that the number of seeds and inflorescences may vary due to random factors such as climate during different growth cycles. After four growth cycles, most of the dandelion falls about 30 meters away from its mother body and grows and reproduces normally. Subsequently, when establishing a risk assessment system for invasive species, three aspects were considered: the characteristics of the species themselves, the natural environment, and human activities. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to assign weights to indicators at each level, and ultimately all indicators at all levels passed the consistency test. And use a risk assessment system to calculate the potential risks that may arise from the invasion of dandelion, Canadian Solidago, and Ambrosia trifida. This can provide some inspiration and reference for corresponding managers in evaluating whether a species is an invasive species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Engineering Technology ResearchSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207