Using geotagged crowdsourced data to assess the diverse socio-cultural values of conservation areas: England as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanity benefits immensely from nature, including through cultural ecosystem services. Geotagged crowdsourced data provide an opportunity to characterize these services at large scales. Flickr data, for example, have been widely used as an indicator of recreational value, while Wikipedia data are increasingly being used as a measure of public interest, potentially capturing often overlooked and less-tangible aspects of socio-cultural values (such as educational, inspirational, and spiritual values). So far, few studies have explored how various geotagged crowdsourced data complement each other, or how correlated these may be, particularly at national scales. To address this knowledge gap, we compare Flickr and Wikipedia datasets in their ability to help characterize the sociocultural value of designated areas in England and assess how this value relates to species richness. Our results show that there was at least one Flickr photo in 35% of all designated areas in England, and at least one Wikipedia page in 60% of them. The Wikipedia and Flickr data were shown not to be independent of each other and were significantly correlated. Species richness was positively and significantly associated with the presence of at least one geotagged Wikipedia page; more biodiverse designated areas, however, were not any more likely to have at least one Flickr photo within them. Our results highlight the potential for new, emerging datasets to capture and communicate the socio-cultural value of nature, building on the strengths of more established crowdsourced 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".