Toward transparent taxonomy: an interactive web‐tool for evaluating competing taxonomic arrangements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informative and consistent taxonomy above the species level is essential to communication about evolution, biodiversity and conservation, and yet the practice of taxonomy is considered opaque and subjective by non-taxonomist scientists and the public alike. While various proposals have tried to make the basis for the ranking and inclusiveness of taxa more transparent and objective, widespread adoption of these ideas has lagged. Here, we present TaxonomR, an interactive online decision-support tool to evaluate alternative taxonomic classifications. This tool implements an approach that quantifies the criteria commonly used in taxonomic treatments and allows the user to interactively manipulate weightings for different criteria to compare scores for taxonomic groupings under those weights. We use the butterfly taxon Argynnis to demonstrate how different weightings applied to common taxonomic criteria result in fundamentally different genus-level classifications that are predominantly used in different continents and geographic regions. These differences are objectively compared and quantified using TaxonomR to evaluate the kinds of criteria that have been emphasized in earlier classifications, and the nature of the support for current alternative taxonomic arrangements. The main role of TaxonomR is to make taxonomic decisions transparent via an explicit prioritization scheme. TaxonomR is not a prescriptive application. Rather, it aims to be a tool for facilitating our understanding of alternative taxonomic classifications that can, in turn, potentially support global harmony in biodiversity assessments through evidence-based discussion and community-wide resolution of historically entrenched taxonomic tensions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 it