MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213022622 · doi:10.1093/ornithapp/duac008

Highly specialized recreationists contribute the most to the citizen science project eBird

2022· article· en· W4213022622 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Connor Rosenblatt, Ashley A. Dayer, Jennifer N. Duberstein, Tina Phillips, Howard W. Harshaw, David C. Fulton, Nicholas W. Cole, Andrew H. Raedeke, Jonathan D. Rutter, Christopher Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsCitizen scienceRecreationChecklistTRIPS architectureScale (ratio)GeographyPsychologyEcologyComputer scienceCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Contributory citizen science projects (hereafter “contributory projects”) are a powerful tool for avian conservation science. Large-scale projects such as eBird have produced data that have advanced science and contributed to many conservation applications. These projects also provide a means to engage the public in scientific data collection. A common challenge across contributory projects like eBird is to maintain participation, as some volunteers contribute just a few times before disengaging. To maximize contributions and manage an effective program that has broad appeal, it is useful to better understand factors that influence contribution rates. For projects capitalizing on recreation activities (e.g., birding), differences in contribution levels might be explained by the recreation specialization framework, which describes how recreationists vary in skill, behavior, and motives. We paired data from a survey of birders across the United States and Canada with data on their eBird contributions (n = 28,926) to test whether those who contributed most are more specialized birders. We assigned participants to 4 contribution groups based on eBird checklist submissions and compared groups’ specialization levels and motivations. More active contribution groups had higher specialization, yet some specialized birders were not active participants. The most distinguishing feature among groups was the behavioral dimension of specialization, with active eBird participants owning specialized equipment and taking frequent trips away from home to bird. Active participants had the strongest achievement motivations for birding (e.g., keeping a life list), whereas all groups had strong appreciation motivations (e.g., enjoying the sights and sounds of birding). Using recreation specialization to characterize eBird participants can help explain why some do not regularly contribute data. Project managers may be able to promote participation, particularly by those who are specialized but not contributing, by appealing to a broader suite of motivations that includes both appreciation and achievement motivations, and thereby increase data for conservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological applicationsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207