A model for community-driven development of best practices: the Ocean Observatories Initiative Biogeochemical Sensor Data Best Practices and User Guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of oceanography is transitioning from data-poor to data-rich, thanks in part to increased deployment of in-situ platforms and sensors, such as those that instrument the US-funded Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). However, generating science-ready data products from these sensors, particularly those making biogeochemical measurements, often requires extensive end-user calibration and validation procedures, which can present a significant barrier. Openly available community-developed and -vetted Best Practices contribute to overcoming such barriers, but collaboratively developing user-friendly Best Practices can be challenging. Here we describe the process undertaken by the NSF-funded OOI Biogeochemical Sensor Data Working Group to develop Best Practices for creating science-ready biogeochemical data products from OOI data, culminating in the publication of the GOOS-endorsed OOI Biogeochemical Sensor Data Best Practices and User Guide. For Best Practices related to ocean observatories, engaging observatory staff is crucial, but having a “user-defined” process ensures the final product addresses user needs. Our process prioritized bringing together a diverse team and creating an inclusive environment where all participants could effectively contribute. Incorporating the perspectives of a wide range of experts and prospective end users through an iterative review process that included “Beta Testers’’ enabled us to produce a final product that combines technical information with a user-friendly structure that illustrates data analysis pipelines via flowcharts and worked examples accompanied by pseudo-code. Our process and its impact on improving the accessibility and utility of the end product provides a roadmap for other groups undertaking similar community-driven activities to develop and disseminate new Ocean Best Practices.
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 | 0.186 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
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".