MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308708771 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001843

The benefits of contributing to the citizen science platform iNaturalist as an identifier

2022· article· en· W4308708771 on OpenAlexaff
Corey T. Callaghan, Thomas Mesaglio, John S. Ascher, Thomas M. Brooks, Analyn Cabras, Mark A. Chandler, William K. Cornwell, Cristóbal Ríos-Málaver, Even Dankowicz, Naufal Urfi Dhiya’ulhaq, Richard A. Fuller, C. Galindo-Leal, Florencia Grattarola, Susan Hewitt, Lila Higgins, Colleen Hitchcock, Keng‐Lou James Hung, Tony Iwane, Paula Kahumbu, Roger C. Kendrick, Samuel R. Kieschnick, Gernot Kunz, Chien C. Lee, Cheng-Tao Lin, Scott R. Loarie, Milton Norman Medina, M.A. McGrouther, Lera Miles, Shaunak Modi, Katarzyna Nowak, Rahayu Oktaviani, Brian M. Waswala-Olewe, James Pagé, Silviu O. Petrovan, cassi saari, Carrie Seltzer, Alexey P. Seregin, Jon J. Sullivan, Amila P. Sumanapala, Aristide Takoukam, Jane Widness, Keith R. Willmott, Wolfgang Wüster, Alison N. Young

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsCanadian Wildlife Federation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifierCitizen scienceBiologyBiodiversityData scienceValue (mathematics)Unique identifierComputational biologyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the number of observations submitted to the citizen science platform iNaturalist continues to grow, it is increasingly important that these observations can be identified to the finest taxonomic level, maximizing their value for biodiversity research. Here, we explore the benefits of acting as an identifier on iNaturalist.

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)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.279
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.279
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.034
Open science0.0040.044
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.026

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations103
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207