MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identifying community practices in marine benthic data usage in Florida

2024· article· en· W4403628987 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Lecours, Anna Braswell, Joy Hazell

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean & Coastal Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersBedford Institute of OceanographyUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiFlorida Institute of Oceanography
KeywordsBenthic zoneOceanographyFisheryGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant proportion of Florida's population lives on the coast and is directly impacted by alterations to the coastal zone, weather disasters ( e.g. , hurricanes, erosion, flooding), or changes to ecosystem services. Data collected in Florida waters (including water quality, habitat health, bathymetry, and fisheries data) are important for the maintenance of coastal waters, communities, and ecosystems. Yet benthic data collected by a variety of stakeholders are often not shared or openly available, with little metadata to ease data reuse, and are often stored in incompatible formats. To assess the needs of government agencies, private companies, academic researchers, and data managers, we conducted a survey and organized an expert focus group to determine the current state of coastal and marine data usage and distribution in Florida. Through the survey, we asked participants to describe the types of data they use or collect, how they use that data, what limitations they encounter with data sharing, how and when they share their data, and what sorts of metadata standards they use in their work. We determined that many data producers and users are unaware of data standards and often do not follow best management practices for data collection and sharing. The sector of activity of the individual respondent (government, academic, non-profit) determined how data users were interacting with or collecting data and what standards they followed when sharing data. Our expert panel largely echoed our findings, with consistent, well-documented, and standardized datasets being the most important components for data integration in projects. To advance accessibility and reusability of benthic data, our project highlights the need for additional training of stakeholders on data standardization, collaboration and integration, which needs to be applied across institutions. A major need that was identified is tools that make data sharing and metadata creation easier and more efficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean & Coastal ManagementSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207