MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7021284665

New Verified Nonindigenous Amphibians and Reptiles in Florida through 2015, with a Summary of More Than 152 Years of Introductions

2016· article· en· W7021284665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Environmental Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonIntroduced speciesQuarter (Canadian coin)AmphibianInvasive speciesHerpetology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More nonindigenous species occur in Florida, USA, than any other region worldwide and may threaten many of Florida’s natural resources. The frequency of new reports mandates the need for regular updates. Herein, we use photographic and specimen vouchers in addition to literature records to provide updated information on verified nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida. Between our most recent summary in 2012 and the end of 2015, 38 additional species are known to have been intercepted (n = 2) or introduced (n = 36). We also update the invasion stage of seven species previously reported from Florida and report that five additional taxa are now established. In total, 191 independent known introductions of 180 herpetofaunal taxa led to the establishment of 63 taxa. This suggests that one in three introduced herpetofaunal species becomes established in Florida. The pet trade represents the most common introduction pathway among these species and a single animal importer in Hollywood, Broward County, is the probable source for introduction of a quarter of all herpetofauna introduced to Florida.

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)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicAgricultural and Environmental ManagementFrench-language works237,207