MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059654628 · doi:10.1038/npre.2009.3967.1

Obtaining New Insights for Biodiversity Conservation from Broad-Scale Citizen Science Data

2009· preprint· en· W2059654628 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Kelling, Daniel Fink, Wesley M. Hochachka, Marshall J. Iliff, Brian T. Sullivan, Christopher G. Wood, Arthur Munson, Mirek Riedewald

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Precedings · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersLeon Levy FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCitizen scienceData scienceChecklistScale (ratio)Data collectionTemporal scalesComputer scienceEcologyData managementDistribution (mathematics)VisualizationEnvironmental resource managementGeographyData miningCartographyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasing public engagement in volunteer science1, either through data collection2 or processing3, is both raising public awareness of science and gathering useful information for scientists. While the payoffs of citizen science4 are potentially large, achieving them requires new approaches to data management and analysis that can only result from strong cross-disciplinary collaborations. This is especially true in ecology and conservation biology, where historically the understanding of species’ responses to environmental change has been constrained by the limited spatial5 or temporal scale6 of available data. Here we describe collaborative research in ecology, computer science, and statistics to generate essential information for conservation management of North American birds: accurate dynamic bird distributions models based on habitat associations across much of North America. Unique is our ability to describe the broad-scale dynamics of seasonal bird distributions and the associated seasonal patterns of habitat use. Our source of bird distribution data is eBird7, an online bird checklist program that currently gathers more than 74,000 checklists monthly from a large network of contributors. Our results were made possible through a data intensive scientific workflow8 that includes analytical methods merged from the fields of machine learning and statistics. We believe that this novel approach of data collection, synthesis, analysis, and visualization will serve as a hallmark for future research initiatives, with broad applicability across many scientific domains.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature PrecedingsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207