MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406934208 · doi:10.7717/peerj.18853

Evaluating the feasibility of automating dataset retrieval for biodiversity monitoring

2025· article· en· W4406934208 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance (law)Ranking (information retrieval)Information retrievalOverfittingBiodiversityDatabasePaceData miningData scienceMachine learningGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: Effective management strategies for conserving biodiversity and mitigating the impacts of global change rely on access to comprehensive and up-to-date biodiversity data. However, manual search, retrieval, evaluation, and integration of this information into databases present a significant challenge to keeping pace with the rapid influx of large amounts of data, hindering its utility in contemporary decision-making processes. Automating these tasks through advanced algorithms holds immense potential to revolutionize biodiversity monitoring. Innovation: In this study, we investigate the potential for automating the retrieval and evaluation of biodiversity data from Dryad and Zenodo repositories. We have designed an evaluation system based on various criteria, including the type of data provided and its spatio-temporal range, and applied it to manually assess the relevance for biodiversity monitoring of datasets retrieved through an application programming interface (API). We evaluated a supervised classification to identify potentially relevant datasets and investigate the feasibility of automatically ranking the relevance. Additionally, we applied the same appraoch on a scientific literature source, using data from Semantic Scholar for reference. Our evaluation centers on the database utilized by a national biodiversity monitoring system in Quebec, Canada. Main conclusions: We retrieved 89 (55%) relevant datasets for our database, showing the value of automated dataset search in repositories. Additionally, we find that scientific publication sources offer broader temporal coverage and can serve as conduits guiding researchers toward other valuable data sources. Our automated classification system showed moderate performance in detecting relevant datasets (with an F-score up to 0.68) and signs of overfitting, emphasizing the need for further refinement. A key challenge identified in our manual evaluation is the scarcity and uneven distribution of metadata in the texts, especially pertaining to spatial and temporal extents. Our evaluative framework, based on predefined criteria, can be adopted by automated algorithms for streamlined prioritization, and we make our manually evaluated data publicly available, serving as a benchmark for improving classification techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.106 · 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