Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Who conducts biological research, where, and how the results are disseminated varies among geographies and identities. Identifying and documenting these forms of bias by research communities is a critical first step towards addressing them. We documented perceived and observed biases in movement ecology. Movement ecology is a rapidly expanding sub-discipline of biology, which is strongly underpinned by fieldwork and technology use. First, we surveyed attendees of an international conference, and discussed the results at the conference (comparing uninformed vs informed perceived bias). Although most researchers identified as bias-aware, only a subset of biases were discussed in conversation. Next, by considering author affiliations from publications in the journal Movement Ecology, we found among-country discrepancies between the country of the authors’ affiliation and study site location related to national economics. At the within-country scale, we found that race-gender identities of postgraduate biology researchers in the USA differed from national demographics. We discuss the role of potential specific causes for the emergence of bias in the sub-discipline, e.g. parachute-science or accessibility to fieldwork. Undertaking data-driven analysis of bias within research sub-disciplines can help identify specific barriers and first steps towards the inclusion of a greater diversity of participants in the scientific process.
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 | 0.061 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".