Data-Intensive Ecological Research Is Catalyzed by Open Science and Team Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many problems facing society and the environment need ecologists to use increasingly larger volumes and heterogeneous types of data and approaches designed to harness such data—that is, data-intensive science. In the present article, we argue that data-intensive science will be most successful when used in combination with open science and team science. However, there are cultural barriers to adopting each of these types of science in ecology. We describe the benefits and cultural barriers that exist for each type of science and the powerful synergies realized by practicing team science and open science in conjunction with data-intensive science. Finally, we suggest that each type of science is made up of myriad practices that can be aligned along gradients from low to high level of adoption and advocate for incremental adoption of each type of science to meet the needs of the project and researchers.
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 | 0.194 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".