Evaluation and recommendations for greater accessibility of colour figures in ornithology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People who are colour‐blind or have some form of colour vision deficiency form an invisible minority and scientists should strive to be as inclusive as possible. We reviewed 2873 figures published in 2019 from 1031 scientific papers in 27 ornithological journals to determine those that were colour‐blind compatible, and those that were black‐and‐white printer friendly. About 26% of the published figures were in colour, and while most were colour‐blind compatible, only ~ 60% of them were black‐and‐white printer friendly. Ensuring figures in all forms of scientific communication can be interpreted by readers who are colour‐blind, and can be printed in black‐and‐white will improve the accessibility of ornithological research.
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 | 0.302 | 0.763 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.023 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".