Biodiversity Observations Miner: A web application to unlock primary biodiversity data from published literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A considerable portion of primary biodiversity data is digitally locked inside published literature which is often stored as pdf files. Large-scale approaches to biodiversity science could benefit from retrieving this information and making it digitally accessible and machine-readable. Nonetheless, the amount and diversity of digitally published literature pose many challenges for knowledge discovery and retrieval. Text mining has been extensively used for data discovery tasks in large quantities of documents. However, text mining approaches for knowledge discovery and retrieval have been limited in biodiversity science compared to other disciplines. NEW INFORMATION: This web application, written in R, allows the semi-automated discovery of punctual biodiversity observations (e.g. biotic interactions, functional or behavioural traits and natural history descriptions) associated with the scientific names present inside a corpus of scientific literature. Furthermore, BOM enable users the rapid screening of large quantities of literature based on word co-occurrences that match custom biodiversity dictionaries. This tool aims to increase the digital mobilisation of primary biodiversity data and is freely accessible via GitHub or through a web server.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads 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".