Parallels and discrepancies between non‐native species introductions and human migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".