Examining spatial biases in the community science platform, iNaturalist, using British Columbia, Canada, as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-growing interest in community science platforms like iNaturalist and eBird is ushering in a new era of biodiversity and ecology research where researchers are overflowing with data across large geographical and temporal scales. However, these big and often unstructured data come with a cost, biases. These biases include temporal, spatial, and taxonomic biases in opportunistically collected community science datasets like the popular biodiversity platform, iNaturalist. There is a need to improve our knowledge of the biases on these platforms, so that the data can be used effectively. My thesis tackles this gap by examining spatial biases on the iNaturalist platform. My first study uses Maxent to model broad-scale spatial bias in iNaturalist observations in British Columbia, Canada. I ask: Where are iNaturalist users primarily observing? and What landscape features best explain the spatial bias? I find that distance to roads is the most important landscape variable explaining spatial bias. In my second chapter, I experimentally tested whether fine-scale spatial biases of trails affected taxonomic richness estimates on iNaturalist using paired timed transects with a team of iNaturalist observers. I found greater taxonomic richness on trails compared to away from trails and no difference in rare species observations between on and off trails, suggesting there is no loss of information by primarily surveying along trails. Overall, this research shows important variables to include to control for spatial bias when using iNaturalist data and provides reassuring evidence that fine-scale bias does not impede biodiversity surveying from community scientists.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".