MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730070504 · doi:10.1080/iw-6.4.894

High-frequency lake data benefit society through broader engagement with stakeholders: a synthesis of GLEON data use survey and membe rexperiences

2016· article· en· W2730070504 on OpenAlexafffund
Robyn L. Smyth, Alicia M. Caruso, Lisa Borre, Guangwei Zhu, Mengyuan Zhu, Amy L. Hetherington, Eleanor Jennings, Jennifer L. Klug, María Cintia Píccolo, James A. Rusak, Kathleen C. Weathers, Courtney Wigdahl-Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueInland Waters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaGlobal Lake Ecological Observatory NetworkUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOutreachPublic engagementScope (computer science)Public relationsCitizen scienceCommunity engagementEnvironmental resource managementBusinessKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) has a tremendous opportunity to facilitate greater public understanding of lakes and enable evidence-based decision making for freshwater ecosystems with high frequency data. To investigate this potential as well as the scope of outreach activities currently underway, we surveyed the 46 GLEON sites active as of 2013 about the uses of the high-frequency lake data (HFD). Of the 26 who responded, 69% engaged in or were aware of the use of GLEON HFD beyond academics. To highlight some of the outreach activities conducted in collaboration with GLEON scientists, we elaborate on 3 categories of data use: (1) engaging with citizens, (2) educating students and teachers, and (3) aiding in decision making. When synthesized with a discussion of examples of broader engagement activities across the network from the perspective of participants, the results suggest GLEON’s network science approach enables the diffusion of ideas and tools for conducting effective outreach. Results also point to opportunities for GLEON to build on existing experience to encourage greater engagement of member scientists in lake conservation, restoration, and management. In light of the growing challenges in managing water quality and quantity, our findings will help determine best practices and provide guidance to scientists on how to engage a broader range of stakeholders in lake research and management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInland WatersSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207