Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bumble Bee Watch is a community science program where participants submit photos of bumble bees from across Canada and the United States for expert verification. The data can be used to help better understand bumble bee biology and aid in their conservation. Yet for community science programs like this to be successful and sustainable, it is important to understand the participant demographics, what motivates them, and the outcomes of their participation, as well as areas that are working well or could be improved. It is also important to understand who verifies the submissions, who uses the data and their views on the program. Of the surveyed users, most participate to contribute to scientific data collection (88%), because of a worry about bees and a desire to help save them (80%), to learn more about species in their property (63%) or region (56%), and because of a personal interest (59%). About 77% report increased awareness of species diversity, while 84% report improvement in their identification skills. We found that 81% had at least one college or university degree. There were more respondents from suburban and rural areas than urban areas, but area did not affect numbers of submissions. While half were between 45 and 64 years of age, age did not influence motivation or number of submissions. Respondents were happy with the program, particularly the website resources, the contribution to knowledge and conservation efforts, the educational values, and the ability to get identifications. Areas for improvement included app and website functionality, faster and more detailed feedback, localized resources, and more communication. Most respondents participate rarely and have submitted fewer than ten records, although about five percent are super users who participate often and submit more than fifty records. Suggested improvements to the program may increase this participation rate. Indeed, increased recruitment and retention of users in general is important, and advertising should promote the outcomes of participation. Fifteen experts responded to a separate survey and were favorable of the program although there were suggestions on how to improve the verification process and the quality of the submitted data. Suggested research questions that could be asked or answered from the data included filling knowledge gaps (species diversity, ranges, habitat, phenology, floral associations, etc.), supporting species status assessments, effecting policy and legislation, encouraging habitat restoration and management efforts, and guiding further research. However, only about half have used data from the project to date. Further promotion of Bumble Bee Watch and community science programs in general should occur amongst academia, conservationists, policy makers, and the general public. This would help to increase the number and scope of submissions, knowledge of these species, interest in conserving them, and the overall program impact.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".