MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407824420 · doi:10.1111/brv.70004

Parallels and discrepancies between non‐native species introductions and human migration

2025· review· en· W4407824420 on OpenAlexaff
Danish A. Ahmed, Ronaldo Sousa, Alejandro Bortolus, Ceray Aldemir, Nicole F. Angeli, Dagmara Błońska, Elizabeta Briski, J. Robert Britton, Carlos Cano‐Barbacil, Aaron Clark‐Ginsberg, Irina Culic, Ross N. Cuthbert, Jaimie T. A. Dick, Romina D. Dimarco, Franz Essl, Teun Everts, Emili García‐Berthou, Mathew Hauer, Antonín Kouba, Melina Kourantidou, U. Kutschera, Stefano Mammola, Irene Martín‐Forés, Olivier Morissette, Martín A. Núñez, Julian D. Olden, Lucian Pârvulescu, Jan Pergl, David Renault, Axel Eduardo Rico‐Sánchez, James C. Russell, Ismael Soto, Ali Serhan Tarkan, Tuğba Uçma Uysal, Hugo Verreycken, Lorenzo Vilizzi, Ryan J. Wasserman, Priscilla M. Wehi, Phillip J. Haubrock

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónAkademie Věd České RepublikyEuropean Commission
KeywordsParallelsContext (archaeology)Environmental ethicsPoliticsHarmCorporate governancePolitical scienceSociologyEcologyGeographyBiologyLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological invasions and human migrations have increased globally due to socio-economic drivers and environmental factors that have enhanced cultural, economic, and geographic connectivity. Both processes involve the movement, establishment, and spread of species, yet unfold within fundamentally different philosophical, social and biological contexts. Hence, studying biological invasions (invasion science) and human migration (migration studies) presents complex parallels that are potentially fruitful to explore. Here, we examined nuanced parallels and differences between these two phenomena, integrating historical, socio-political, and ethical perspectives. Our review underscores the need for context-specific approaches in policymaking and governance to address effectively the challenges and opportunities of human migration and harm from biological invasions. We suggest that approaches to studying the drivers of biological invasions and human migration provide an excellent opportunity for transdisciplinary research; one that acknowledges the complexities and potential insights from both fields of study. Ultimately, integrating natural and social sciences offers a promising avenue for enriching the understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing just, equitable, and sustainable solutions. However, while human migration is a clear driver of biological invasions, drawing on principles from biological invasions to understand past and current human migration risks oversimplification and the potential for harmful generalisations that disregard the intrinsic rights and cultural dynamics of human migrations. By doing so, we provide insights and frameworks to support the development of context-specific policies that respect human dignity, foster cultural diversity, and address migration challenges in ways that promote global cooperation and justice. This interdisciplinary approach highlights the potential for transdisciplinary research that acknowledges complexities in both fields, ultimately enriching our understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing equitable and sustainable solutions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207