Identifying the Big Questions in paleontology: a community-driven project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Paleontology provides insights into the history of the planet, from the origins of life billions of years ago to the biotic changes of the Recent. The scope of paleontological research is as vast as it is varied, and the field is constantly evolving. In an effort to identify “Big Questions” in paleontology, experts from around the world came together to build a list of priority questions the field can address in the years ahead. The 89 questions presented herein (grouped within 11 themes) represent contributions from nearly 200 international scientists. These questions touch on common themes including biodiversity drivers and patterns, integrating data types across spatiotemporal scales, applying paleontological data to contemporary biodiversity and climate issues, and effectively utilizing innovative methods and technology for new paleontological insights. In addition to these theoretical questions, discussions touch upon structural concerns within the field, advocating for an increased valuation of specimen-based research, protection of natural heritage sites, and the importance of collections infrastructure, along with a stronger emphasis on human diversity, equity, and inclusion. These questions offer a starting point—an initial nucleus of consensus that paleontologists can expand on—for engaging in discussions, securing funding, advocating for museums, and fostering continued growth in shared research directions.
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 | 0.167 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".