Software codesign between end users and developers to enhance utility for biodiversity conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creating software tools that address the needs of a wide range of decision-makers requires the inclusion of differing perspectives throughout the development process. Software tools for biodiversity conservation often fall short in this regard, partly because broad decision-maker needs may exceed the toolkits of single research groups or even institutions. We show that participatory, collaborative codesign enhances the utility of software tools for better decision-making in biodiversity conservation planning, as demonstrated by our experiences developing a set of integrated tools in Colombia. Specifically, we undertook an interdisciplinary, multi-institutional collaboration of ecological modelers, software engineers, and a diverse profile of potential end users, including decision-makers, conservation practitioners, and biodiversity experts. We leveraged and modified common paradigms of software production, including codesign and agile development, to facilitate collaboration through all stages (including conceptualization, development, testing, and feedback) to ensure the accessibility and applicability of the new tools to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation planning.
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".