MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409873155 · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2025.03.016

Harnessing traits to predict economic impacts from biological invasions

2025· review· en· W4409873155 on OpenAlexaff
Ross N. Cuthbert, Thomas W. Bodey, Elizabeta Briski, Isabella Capellini, Jaimie T. A. Dick, Melina Kourantidou, Anthony Ricciardi, Daniel Pincheira‐Donoso

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Ecology & Evolution · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEuropean CommissionLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological invasions stand among the main anthropogenic threats to ecosystems globally while causing multitrillion-dollar impacts. Surprisingly, while trait-based frameworks have been designed to predict invasion success and invader ecological impacts, no such approaches exist to understand and predict economic impacts. We propose the first such framework by bridging the evolutionary biology of traits and the escalation of invasion costs. Previously acquired traits can benefit performance, and their rapid change could exacerbate impacts through adaptive and non-adaptive processes during invasion, such as natural selection, genetic drift, or phenotypic plasticity. Emerging evidence suggests that some organismal traits can determine economic impact magnitudes. We discuss new transdisciplinary avenues that can inform cost forecasting and management responses for current and future biological invasions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Ecology & EvolutionSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207