A Fresh Perspective on Freshwater Data Management and Sharing: Exploring Insights from the Technology Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that effective management and restoration of freshwater ecosystems is often limited by the availability of reusable data. Although numerous public, private, and nonprofit organizations collect data from freshwater ecosystems, much of what is collected remains inaccessible or unusable by Rights holders and end users (including researchers, practitioners, community members, and decision-makers). In Canada, the federal government plans to improve freshwater data sharing practices through the newly formed Canada Water Agency, which is currently drafting a National Freshwater Data Strategy. Our study aimed to support these efforts by synthesizing insights from the technology sector, where data management and sharing practices are more mature. We interviewed 12 experts from the technology sector, asking them for advice on how to improve data sharing practices in the freshwater science sector. Using a Reflexive Thematic Analysis of participants’ responses to semi-structured interview questions, we identified nine broad recommendations. Recommendations centred on motivating open data sharing, promoting data reuse through data licences, training and skill building, and developing standards and digital solutions that enable data discovery, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse. These recommendations can support the numerous initiatives that are working to improve access to high-quality freshwater data and help address the pressing crisis of global freshwater ecosystem degradation.
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 | 0.033 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".