Designing a collective prototype of future (sub)tropical science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecologists coming from certain countries are currently disfavoured on the peer review process, the recognition of their research products and academic labour, and the lack of leadership opportunities in global settings. Additionally, we often witness deliberate obfuscation of (sub)tropical ecologists on matters pertaining to our own communities, and we believe that putting these researchers at the centre of the discussion on the practice of tropical science is urgent. Breaking barriers for early career researchers with lived, living, and working experience in the tropical and subtropical regions to lead and contribute meaningfully to their own communities will be decisive to revamp academic culture, as well as to bring the necessary change to public policies affecting local ecosystems. In this perspective, we acknowledge the multiscale efforts needed to shape the future of ecology as a profession, delineating the effects of social spheres outside academia, academic and adjacent institutions, and the scientific community on the opportunities available for (sub)tropical researchers.
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 | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".