Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who conducts biological research, where they do it and how results are disseminated vary among geographies and identities. Identifying and documenting these forms of bias by research communities is a critical step towards addressing them. We documented perceived and observed biases in movement ecology, a rapidly expanding sub-discipline of biology, which is strongly underpinned by fieldwork and technology use. We surveyed attendees before an international conference to assess a baseline within-discipline perceived bias (uninformed perceived bias). We analysed geographic patterns in Movement Ecology articles, finding discrepancies between the country of the authors’ affiliation and study site location, related to national economics. We analysed race-gender identities of USA biology researchers (the closest to our sub-discipline with data available), finding that they differed from national demographics. Finally, we discussed the quantitatively observed bias at the conference, to assess within-discipline perceived bias informed with observational data (informed perceived bias). Although the survey indicated most conference participants as bias-aware, conversations only covered a subset of biases. We discuss potential causes of bias (parachute-science, fieldwork accessibility), solutions and the need to evaluate mitigatory action effectiveness. Undertaking data-driven analysis of bias within sub-disciplines can help identify specific barriers and move towards the inclusion of a greater diversity of participants in the scientific process.
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 | 0.087 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".