Citizen science data quality: Harnessing the power of recreational SCUBA divers for rockfish (Sebastes spp.) conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring rare or elusive species can be especially difficult in marine environments, resulting in poor data density. SCUBA-derived citizen science data has the potential to improve data density for conservation. However, citizen science data quality may be perceived to be of low quality relative to professional data due to a lack of ‘expertise’ and increased observer variability. We evaluated the quality of data collected by citizen science scuba divers for rockfish (Sebastes spp.) conservation around Southern Vancouver Island, Canada. An information-theoretic approach was taken in two separate analyses to address the overarching question: ‘what factors are important for SCUBA-derived citizen science data quality?’. The first analysis identified predictors of variability in precision between paired divers. We found that professional scientific divers did not exhibit greater data precision than recreational divers. Instead, precision variation was best explained by study site and divers’ species identification or recreational training. A second analysis identified what observer and environmental factors correlated with higher resolution identifications (i.e. identified to the species level rather than family or genus). We found divers provided higher resolution identifications on surveys when they had high species ID competency and diving experience. Favorable conditions (high visibility and earlier in the day) also increased taxonomic resolution on dive surveys. With our findings, we are closer to realizing the full potential of citizen science to increase our capacity to monitor rare and elusive species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".