Enhancing collaboration between ecologists and computer scientists: lessons learned and recommendations forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the era of big data, ecologists are increasingly relying on computational approaches and tools to answer existing questions and pose new research questions. These include both software applications (e.g., simulation models, databases and machine learning algorithms) and hardware systems (e.g., wireless sensor networks, supercomputing, drones and satellites), motivating the need for greater collaboration between computer scientists and ecologists. Here, we outline some synergistic opportunities for scientists in both disciplines that can be gained by building collaborations between the computer science and ecology research communities, with a focus on the benefits to ecology specifically. We also identify past contributions of computer science to ecology, including high‐frequency environmental sensor technology, advanced supercomputing capacity for ecological modeling, databases for long‐term and high‐frequency datasets, and software programs for ecological analyses, to anticipate future potential contributions. These examples highlight the power and potential for further integration of computer science technology and ideas into the ecological research community. Finally, we translate our own experiences working together as a team of computer scientists and ecologists over the past decade into a conceptual framework with recommendations for supporting productive collaborations at the interface of the two disciplines. We specifically focus on how to apply best practices of team science for bridging computer science and ecology, which we advocate will substantially benefit ecology long‐term.
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 | 0.092 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".