ArticleBiodiversity data journal2020
A strategy to digitise natural history collections with limited resources.
Article in Biodiversity data journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The digitisation workflow of the herbarium of the State Museum of Natural History of the NAS of Ukraine (LWS).Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present work is a contribution towards accelerating the digitisation process of natural history collections, usually a slow process. A two-stage process was developed at the herbarium of the University of Coimbra: (i) a new workflow was established to automatically create records in the herbarium master database with minimum information, while capturing digital images; (ii) these records are then used to populate a web-based crowdsourcing platform where citizens are involved in the transcription of specimen labels from the digital images. This approach simplifies and accelerates databasing, reduces specimen manipulation and promotes the involvement of citizens in the scientific goals of the herbarium. The novel features of this process are: (i) the validation method of the crowdsourcing contribution that ensures quality control, enabling the data to integrate the master database directly and (ii) the field-by-field integration in the master database enables immediate corrections to any record in the catalogue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.