MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411668704 · doi:10.1038/s44185-025-00097-3

Cultural integration of invasive species

2025· review· en· W4411668704 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Jarić, Álvaro Fernández‐Llamazares, Zsolt Molnár, Ugo Arbieu, Susan Canavan, Ricardo A. Correia, Franz Essl, Katie Kamelamela, Richard J. Ladle, Anne-Claire Maurice, Yves Meinard, Ana Novoa, Martín A. Núñez, Petr Pyšek, Uri Roll, Valerio Sbragaglia, Ross T. Shackleton, Liron Shani, Kate Sherren, Yael Teff-Seker, Ana Sofía Vaz, Priscilla M. Wehi, Jonathan M. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Biodiversity · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaKoneen SäätiöAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónAkademie Věd České RepublikyAustrian Science FundHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeGrantová Agentura České RepublikyNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalEuropean Commission
KeywordsCultural diversityEcologyInvasive speciesEnvironmental ethicsDiversity (politics)SociologyEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBiologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many invasive non-native species gradually become embedded within local cultures. Such species can increasingly be perceived by society as familiar or even native elements of the social-ecological system and become an integral part of local cultures. Here, we explore this phenomenon and refer to it as the cultural integration of invasive species. Although culturally integrated species can positively contribute to people's lives and well-being, and provide new or lost ecosystem services, their acceptance can also hinder the ability of conservation managers to successfully manage invasive species by reducing public support for their management. Cultural integration can infringe upon social values and cultural identities, and contribute to the erosion and homogenization of biocultural diversity. It can also modify or displace the cultural uses and values of native species, and may disrupt social-ecological legacies and dynamics. We present the main mechanisms of cultural integration, its drivers and major implications, and provide key recommendations for the management and conservation of biological and cultural diversity.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj BiodiversitySame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207