MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996089563 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2019.00197

Key Questions for Next-Generation Biomonitoring

2020· article· en· W2996089563 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Makiola, Zacchaeus G. Compson, Donald J. Baird, Matthew A. Barnes, Sam P. Boerlijst, Agnès Bouchez, Georgina Brennan, Alex Bush, Elsa Canard, Tristan Cordier, Simon Creer, R. Allen Curry, Patrice David, Alex J. Dumbrell, Dominique Gravel, Mehrdad Hajibabaei, Brian Hayden, Berry van der Hoorn, Philippe Jarne, J. Iwan Jones, Battle Karimi, François Keck, Martyn Kelly, Ineke E. Knot, Louie Krol, François Massol, Wendy A. Monk, John Murphy, Jan Pawłowski, Timothée Poisot, Teresita M. Porter, Kate C. Randall, Emma Ransome, Virginie Ravigné, Alan Raybould, Stéphane Robin, Maarten Schrama, Bertrand Schatz, Alireza Tamaddoni‐Nezhad, Krijn B. Trimbos, Corinne Vacher, Valentin Vasselon, Susie Wood, Guy Woodward, David A. Bohan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of GuelphOntario GenomicsNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaOntario Forest Research InstituteUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBiomonitoringKey (lock)SuiteField (mathematics)Computer scienceEnvironmental resource managementBiodiversityData scienceEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical biomonitoring techniques have focused primarily on measures linked to various biodiversity metrics and indicator species. Next-generation biomonitoring (NGB) describes a suite of tools and approaches that allow the examination of a broader spectrum of organisational levels - from genes to entire ecosystems. Here, we frame ten key questions that we envisage will drive the field of NGB over the next decade. While not exhaustive, this list covers most of the key challenges facing NGB, and provides the basis of the next steps for research and implementation in this field. These questions have been grouped into current- and outlook-related categories, corresponding to the organization of this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.017
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations97
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Environmental ScienceSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207