MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6930918080 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1578166

Cammini LTER: walking and cycling with citizens across Italian ecosystems

2018· article· en· W6930918080 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Anesthesia Research Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen scienceVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)BiodiversityRecreationPublic engagementEcosystemBehavioural sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Italian ecologists, active in Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER-Italy network) and in biodiversity study (LifeWatch-Italy), launched a process of informal science communication, aimed at increasing ecological awareness and literacy, also through Citizen Science activities. Since 2015, they organized “Cammini LTER”, trails connecting a number of LTER-Italy sites, where researchers walked and cycled with citizens, sharing research questions, methodologies and results. The citizens’ engagement through a physical and visible movement of researchers outside their laboratories enhanced the opportunity to familiarize with a wide variety of Italian ecosystems and with the LTER data acquisition procedures. The slow rhythm of walking or cycling offers the possibility to overcome an exclusively rational and cognitive approach, breaking down the barriers between science and society, and bringing emotions and affectivity into the ecological subjects. Cammini LTER generated a process of mutual learning with the public and induced critical considerations among researchers about relevant aspects of science literacy and public engagement.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207