↓ Skip to main content

Taking a ‘Big Data’ approach to data quality in a citizen science project

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
364 Mendeley
Title
Taking a ‘Big Data’ approach to data quality in a citizen science project
Published in
Ambio, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0710-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve Kelling, Daniel Fink, Frank A. La Sorte, Alison Johnston, Nicholas E. Bruns, Wesley M. Hochachka

Abstract

Data from well-designed experiments provide the strongest evidence of causation in biodiversity studies. However, for many species the collection of these data is not scalable to the spatial and temporal extents required to understand patterns at the population level. Only data collected from citizen science projects can gather sufficient quantities of data, but data collected from volunteers are inherently noisy and heterogeneous. Here we describe a 'Big Data' approach to improve the data quality in eBird, a global citizen science project that gathers bird observations. First, eBird's data submission design ensures that all data meet high standards of completeness and accuracy. Second, we take a 'sensor calibration' approach to measure individual variation in eBird participant's ability to detect and identify birds. Third, we use species distribution models to fill in data gaps. Finally, we provide examples of novel analyses exploring population-level patterns in bird distributions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 364 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 350 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 18%
Researcher 55 15%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Other 21 6%
Other 53 15%
Unknown 72 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 24%
Environmental Science 70 19%
Computer Science 36 10%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 12 3%
Other 46 13%
Unknown 93 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,321,686
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#220
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,365
of 298,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.