The differential population success of two non-indigenous elms (Ulmus pumila and U. glabra) introduced into river valleys in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ulmus pumila and U. glabra have been introduced intentionally into two river valley systems in Toronto, Canada. Ulmus pumila has become invasive, possibly displacing the indigenous U. americana, whereas Ulmus glabra remains uncommon. This research sought characters that might explain why U. pumila has become invasive, and U. glabra did not. I found that Ulmus pumila has the potential to produce more propagules than the other Ulmus spp. studied. The estimated dispersal distance of fruits released from a height of 20 m in a 7.0 m/s wind was 192 m for U. glabra, 41% farther than U. pumila and 58% farther than U. americana. Germination success in an old field community was 12% for U. pumila, 8% for U. americana and <1% for U. glabra. The comparison of two non-indigenous species—one invasive, the other not—found that poor germination was the most important factor influencing failure as an invasive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".