Mining for Species, Locations, Habitats, and Ecosystems from Scientific Papers in Invasion Biology: A Large-Scale Exploratory Study with Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents an exploratory study that harnesses the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to mine key ecological entities from invasion biology literature. Specifically, we focus on extracting species names, their locations, associated habitats, and ecosystems, information that is critical for understanding species spread, predicting future invasions, and informing conservation efforts. Traditional text mining approaches often struggle with the complexity of ecological terminology and the subtle linguistic patterns found in these texts. By applying general-purpose LLMs without domain-specific fine-tuning, we uncover both the promise and limitations of using these models for ecological entity extraction. In doing so, this study lays the groundwork for more advanced, automated knowledge extraction tools that can aid researchers and practitioners in understanding and managing biological invasions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent systems have shown strong general-purpose language capabilities and encouraging results in scientific text mining, information extraction, and structured generation.
“Recent systems have shown strong general-purpose language capabilities and encouraging results in scientific text mining, information extraction, and structured generation [7][8][9][10].”
From Diagnosing the limits of large language models for structured scientific evidence extraction (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
The Introduction describes using general-purpose LLMs without domain-specific fine-tuning for scientific information extraction and reports structured information extracted from invasion-biology abstracts. It characterizes the results as showing both promise and limitations, but does not establish strong general-purpose language capabilities beyond this task. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnosing the limits of large language models for structured scientific evidence extraction
Tan, Z., D’Souza, J., & Auer, S. (2026) · International Journal on Digital Libraries · doi:10.1007/s00799-026-00449-9
Self-citation
- Authors
- D'Souza, J., Laubach, Z., Al Mustafa, T., Zarrieß, S., Frühstückl, R., & Illari, P.
- Publisher
- California Digital Library (CDL)
- Published
- 2025-03-05
- OpenAlex
- W4408248326
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- EcoEvoRxiv (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- invasion biology, large language models, species names, biological invasions, text mining, automated knowledge extraction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review