Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718390›Full record

SynthesisProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Hoping for optimality or designing for inclusion: Persistence, learning, and the social network of citizen science.

Julia K Parrish, Timothy Jones, Hillary K Burgess, Yurong He, Lucy Fortson, Darlene Cavalier

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. EchidnaCSI: Engaging the public in research and conservation of the short-beaked echidna.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Creativity and collaboration: Revisiting cybernetic serendipity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia K ParrishSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020; jparrish@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2410-3982
Timothy JonesSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020.
Hillary K BurgessSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020.
Yurong HeSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020.
Lucy FortsonSchool of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Darlene CavalierSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5603.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The explosive growth in citizen science combined with a recalcitrance on the part of mainstream science to fully embrace this data collection technique demands a rigorous examination of the factors influencing data quality and project efficacy. Patterns of contributor effort and task performance have been well reviewed in online projects; however, studies of hands-on citizen science are lacking. We used a single hands-on, out-of-doors project-the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST)-to quantitatively explore the relationships among participant effort, task performance, and social connectedness as a function of the demographic characteristics and interests of participants, placing these results in the context of a meta-analysis of 54 citizen science projects. Although online projects were typified by high (>90%) rates of one-off participation and low retention (<10%) past 1 y, regular COASST participants were highly likely to continue past their first survey (86%), with 54% active 1 y later. Project-wide, task performance was high (88% correct species identifications over the 31,450 carcasses and 163 species found). However, there were distinct demographic differences. Age, birding expertise, and previous citizen science experience had the greatest impact on participant persistence and performance, albeit occasionally in opposite directions. Gender and sociality were relatively inconsequential, although highly gregarious social types, i.e., "nexus people," were extremely influential at recruiting others. Our findings suggest that hands-on citizen science can produce high-quality data especially if participants persist, and that understanding the demographic data of participation could be used to maximize data quality and breadth of participation across the larger societal landscape.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingLearningScienceSocial NetworkingCommunity ParticipationComprehensionData AccuracyEducation, DistanceHumansResearchSurveys and Questionnairescitizen sciencecrowdsourcingdabblersdata qualityretention

Identifiers

PMID30718390
PMCPMC6369789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.