MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097409290

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE INVASIVE PLANT PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE AND ITS HYPERSPECTRAL MONITORING

2008· article· en· W7097409290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvasive speciesIntroduced speciesWetlandWildlifeHabitatNative plantHyperspectral imagingWeed
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental and ecological problems caused by invasive plants have become too severe to ignore. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum Salicaria) was introduced from Europe to North America in the 1800s. Now known as the "Purple Plague", it has spread across 48 of 50 states in the US and all provinces in Canada. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared Purple Loosestrife "Public Enemy #1 on Federal Lands", and The Nature Conservancy listed it as the 2 nd most troublesome weed in wetlands (Paul Treitz et al 2001). This invader encroaches on wetland and forage land at a rate of about 190,000 hectares per year, kills off other native plants, reduces biodiversity, creates monocultures in wetlands and turns wildlife habitat into “Biological Desert”. The direct costs are estimated at more than $45 million annually in the United States (John L. Schnase 2002), which has lead to increasing efforts to control Purple Loosestrife. This paper provides a new method for identifying, classifying and mapping the distribution of Purple Loosestrife using hyperspectral remote sensing. The new technique and its resultant information will help effectively monitor and control this invasive species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207