MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415748416 · doi:10.24124/2025/30589

“Unavoidable realities justified by a shared passion for the work”: A case study examination of community science and provincial staff experiences in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, Canada

2025· dissertation· W4415748416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kayla Wiens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Community engagementThematic analysisCitizen sciencePublic engagementCommunity organizationBiodiversity conservationScience communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

,Biodiversity in Canada is under threat, with thousands of species at risk of disappearing. Public engagement is essential to strengthening both global and provincial biodiversity frameworks. One promising avenue is community science, which not only offers meaningful environmental experiences for participants and staff, but also actively involves the public in biodiversity conservation efforts. This study focuses on two under-researched areas: (1) the roles and motivations of community science staff, and (2) how community science is integrated into provincial government efforts in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. Treating community science as a distinct case, the research involved semi-structured interviews with 16 community science staff and 11 provincial government employees engaged in biodiversity and community science initiatives. A bottom-up thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed key emerging themes. Findings show that community science staff often juggle multiple responsibilities simultaneously, frequently facing burnout as they adapt to program demands. Meanwhile, provincial government staff operate in decentralized systems marked by knowledge silos and limited interdepartmental communication, often resulting in duplicated efforts. Despite these challenges, positive initiatives are underway in some provinces to enhance support for and engagement with community science. The study highlights the need for intentional support mechanisms such as increased funding, structured frameworks for community science, and the establishment of communities of practice led by provincial governments. These steps are critical for staff retention and the longevity of community science programs. The results are relevant to biodiversity conservation practitioners, environmental non-profits, government agencies, and community science organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0640.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationFrench-language works237,207