Challenges of open data in aquatic sciences: issues faced by data users and data providers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free use and redistribution of data (i.e., Open Data) increases the reproducibility, transparency, and pace of aquatic sciences research. However, barriers to both data users and data providers may limit the adoption of Open Data practices. Here, we describe common Open Data challenges faced by data users and data providers within the aquatic sciences community (i.e., oceanography, limnology, hydrology, and others). These challenges were synthesized from literature, authors’ experiences, and a broad survey of 174 data users and data providers across academia, government agencies, industry, and other sectors. Through this work, we identified seven main challenges: 1) metadata shortcomings, 2) variable data quality and reusability, 3) open data inaccessibility, 4) lack of standardization, 5) authorship and acknowledgement issues 6) lack of funding, and 7) unequal barriers around the globe. Our key recommendation is to improve resources to advance Open Data practices. This includes dedicated funds for capacity building, hiring and maintaining of skilled personnel, and robust digital infrastructures for preparation, storage, and long-term maintenance of Open Data. Further, to incentivize data sharing we reinforce the need for standardized best practices to handle data acknowledgement and citations for both data users and data providers. We also highlight and discuss regional disparities in resources and research practices within a global perspective.
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.121 |
| Open science | 0.048 | 0.069 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it