MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362584618 · doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.1165254

Agile collaboration: Citizen science as a transdisciplinary approach to heliophysics

2023· article· en· W4362584618 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Ledvina, Laura Brandt, E. MacDonald, N. A. Frissell, Justin Anderson, Thomas Y. Chen, Ryan J. French, Francesca Di Mare, Andrea Grover, K. Battams, K. Sigsbee, Bea Gallardo‐Lacourt, Donna Lach, Joseph A. Shaw, Michael Hunnekuhl, Burcu Kosar, Wayne Barkhouse, Tim Young, Chandresh Kedhambadi, Doğacan Öztürk, S. G. Claudepierre, Chuanfei Dong, Andy Witteman, Jeremy Kuzub, Gunjan Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
FundersLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCitizen scienceAgile software developmentAsset (computer security)Work (physics)Engineering ethicsField (mathematics)Public relationsKnowledge managementData sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceComputer securityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citizen science connects scientists with the public to enable discovery, engaging broad audiences across the world. There are many attributes that make citizen science an asset to the field of heliophysics, including agile collaboration. Agility is the extent to which a person, group of people, technology, or project can work efficiently, pivot, and adapt to adversity. Citizen scientists are agile; they are adaptable and responsive. Citizen science projects and their underlying technology platforms are also agile in the software development sense, by utilizing beta testing and short timeframes to pivot in response to community needs. As they capture scientifically valuable data, citizen scientists can bring expertise from other fields to scientific teams. The impact of citizen science projects and communities means citizen scientists are a bridge between scientists and the public, facilitating the exchange of information. These attributes of citizen scientists form the framework of agile collaboration. In this paper, we contextualize agile collaboration primarily for aurora chasers, a group of citizen scientists actively engaged in projects and independent data gathering. Nevertheless, these insights scale across other domains and projects. Citizen science is an emerging yet proven way of enhancing the current research landscape. To tackle the next-generation’s biggest research problems, agile collaboration with citizen scientists will become necessary.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.018
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0030.028
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Astronomy and Space SciencesSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207