Turning observations into biodiversity data: Broadscale spatial biases in community science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biodiversity community science projects are growing rapidly in popularity. The enormous amounts of data generated by these programs are transforming how we conduct ecological research and conservation management. However, as with other biodiversity surveys, community science datasets suffer from biases in time and locations of observations. To better use these data, we modeled the spatial biases present in the popular community science platform, iNaturalist. iNaturalist uses crowdsourcing to collect georeferenced and time‐stamped observations of all taxa worldwide. With its wealth of biodiversity data, iNaturalist is now being used to answer a broad range of questions in ecology and conservation, but little is known about the platform's spatial biases. We focus on the more than 1.75 million iNaturalist observations available (as of December 2021) from British Columbia, Canada, a region with a strong community science presence and diversity of ecosystems. Using machine learning and species distribution modeling, we examined which landscape factors (e.g., protected areas, roads, human population density, habitat zones, elevation) were most important in determining where observations are taken, and we created a predicted probability map revealing how likely different regions are to be sampled by community scientists. We found strong road biases for observations in iNaturalist, with over 94% of observations within 1 km of roads. In addition, human population density and broad habitat ecosystem zones played a large role in predicting where iNaturalist observations occur across the landscape. These methods demonstrate tools for modeling the effects of spatial biases in large opportunistic datasets that can then be used to produce more accurate species distribution and biodiversity models from community science data.
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 | 0.018 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".