MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912173490 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15481349

Code and data from: Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology

2025· dataset· en· W6912173490 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatterjeeMovement (music)Code (set theory)Citizen scienceCLARITY

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This contains model code and data from the paper titled"Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology" By: Shaw AK, Fouda L, Mezzini S, Kim D, Chatterjee N, Wolfson D, Abrahms B, Attias N, Beardsworth CE, Beltran R, Binning SA, Blincow KM, Chan Y-C, Fronhofer EA, Hegemann A, Hurme ER, Iannarilli F, Kellner JB, McCoy KD, Rafiq K, Saastamoinen M, Sequeira AMM, Serota MW, Sumasgutner P, Tao Y, Torstenson M, Yanco SW, Beck KB, Bertram MG, Beumer LT, Bradarić M, Clermont J, Ellis-Soto D, Faltusová M, Fieberg J, Hall RJ, Kölzsch A, Lai S, Lee-Cruz L, Loretto M-C, Loveridge A, Michelangeli M, Mueller T, Riotte-Lambert L, Sapir N, Scacco M, Teitelbaum CS, Cagnacci F Published in: Proceedings of the Royal Society BAbstract: Who conducts biological research, where, and how results are disseminated varies 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.120 · 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