Designcraft for Experiments: Solo Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A set of remote exercises exploring experimental design for the life sciences. A total of three independent labs were done to focus on different design principles, sampling techniques, and taxa. Exercises are described in full in this open access manual entitled Designcraft for experiments. Data were collected by students in a third-year biology course offering at York University in Toronto, ON, Canada. Students collected the data and published individual datasets to figshare with a CCBY4.0 licensing. Data were then compiled for each lab including balcony birdwatching, backyard bioblitz, and solo surveys. The provenance of each independent observation in the compiled data was recognized by attribution to the initials of the primary data author including citation via DOI and link to figshare.AttributionCJL designed the experiments.Students in course offering collected, innovated, and published individual, primary datasets.MZ and CJL reviewed the compiled data.MetadataRecord-levelyear is the calendar year of work not termexperiment describes the three experimental options in designcraft booksource is either full experiment or pilot experimentrep is the replicate per experimental setlocation is the site name locallyhabitat is the ecological classificationdate is the calendar date for each observation
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 | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.050 |
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".