Not all who wander are lost: Trail bias in community science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exponential growth and interest in community science programs is producing staggering amounts of biodiversity data across broad temporal and spatial scales. Large community science datasets such as iNaturalist and eBird are allowing ecologists and conservation biologists to answer novel questions that were not possible before. However, the opportunistic nature of many of these enormous datasets leads to biases. Spatial bias is a common problem, where observations are biased towards points of access like roads and trails. iNaturalist-a popular biodiversity community science platform-exhibits strong spatial biases, but it is unclear how these biases affect the quality of biodiversity data collected. Thus, we tested whether fine-scale spatial bias due to sampling from trails affects taxonomic richness estimates. We compared timed transects with experienced iNaturalist observers on and off trails in British Columbia, Canada. Using generalized linear mixed models, we found higher overall taxonomic richness on trails than off trails. In addition, we found more exotic as well as native taxa on trails than off trails. There was no difference between on and off trail observations for species that are rarely observed. Thus, fine-scale spatial bias from trails does not reduce the quality of biodiversity measurements, a promising result for those interested in using iNaturalist data for research and conservation management.
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 | 0.049 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".