Biodiversity databases in Russia: towards a national portal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russia holds massive biodiversity data accumulated in botanical and zoological collections, literature publications, annual reports of natural reserves, nature conservation, and monitoring study project reports. While some data have been digitized and organized in databases or spreadsheets, most of the biodiversity data in Russia remain dormant and digitally inaccessible. Concepts of open access to research data is spreading, and the lack of data publishing tradition and of use of data standards remain prominent. A national biodiversity information system is lacking and most of the biodiversity data are not available or the available data are not consolidated. As a result, Russian biodiversity data remain fragmented and inaccessible for researchers. The majority of Russian biodiversity databases do not have web interfaces and are accessible only to a limited numbers of researchers. The main reason for lack of access to these resources relates to the fact that the databases have previously been developed only as a local resource. In addition, many sources have previously been developed in the desktop database environments mainly using MS Access and, in some cases, earlier DBMS for DOS, i.e., file-server system, which does not have the functionality to create access to records through a web interface. Among the databases with a web interface, a few information systems have interactive maps with the species occurrence data and systems allowing registered users to upload data. It is important to note that the conceptual structures of these databases were created without taking into account modern standards of the Darwin Core; furthermore, some data sources were developed prior to the first work version of the Darwin Core release in 2001. Despite the complexity and size of the biodiversity data landscape in Russia, the interest in publishing data through international biodiversity portals is increasing among Russian researchers. Since 2014, institutional data publishers in Russia have published about 140 000 species occurrences through gbif.org. The increase in data publishing activity calls for the creation of a GBIF node in Russia, aiming to support Russian biodiversity experts in international data work.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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".