Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39959835›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2025

Making sense of fossils and artefacts: a review of best practices for the design of a successful workflow for machine learning-assisted citizen science projects.

Isaak Eijkelboom, Anne S Schulp, Luc Amkreutz, Dylan Verheul, Wouter Verschoof-van der Vaart, Sasja van der Vaart-Verschoof, Laurens Hogeweg, Django Brunink, Dick Mol, Hans Peeters and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Isaak EijkelboomNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Anne S SchulpNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9389-1540
Luc AmkreutzFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Dylan VerheulNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7817-0200
Wouter Verschoof-van der VaartFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1053-3009
Sasja van der Vaart-VerschoofNational Museum of Antiquities, Leiden, Netherlands.
Laurens HogewegNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6874-5728
Django BruninkNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0731-6636
Dick MolNatural History Museum Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Hans PeetersGroningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Frank WesselinghNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, the extensive involvement of citizen scientists in palaeontology and archaeology has resulted in many discoveries and insights. More recently, machine learning has emerged as a broadly applicable tool for analysing large datasets of fossils and artefacts. In the digital age, citizen science (CS) and machine learning (ML) prove to be mutually beneficial, and a combined CS-ML approach is increasingly successful in areas such as biodiversity research. Ever-dropping computational costs and the smartphone revolution have put ML tools in the hands of citizen scientists with the potential to generate high-quality data, create new insights from large datasets and elevate public engagement. However, without an integrated approach, new CS-ML projects may not realise the full scientific and public engagement potential. Furthermore, object-based data gathering of fossils and artefacts comes with different requirements for successful CS-ML approaches than observation-based data gathering in biodiversity monitoring. In this review we investigate best practices and common pitfalls in this new interdisciplinary field in order to formulate a workflow to guide future palaeontological and archaeological projects. Our CS-ML workflow is subdivided in four project phases: (I) preparation, (II) execution, (III) implementation and (IV) reiteration. To reach the objectives and manage the challenges for different subject domains (CS tasks, ML development, research, stakeholder engagement and app/infrastructure development), tasks are formulated and allocated to different roles in the project. We also provide an outline for an integrated online CS platform which will help reach a project's full scientific and public engagement potential. Finally, to illustrate the implementation of our CS-ML approach in practice and showcase differences with more commonly available biodiversity CS-ML approaches, we discuss the LegaSea project in which fossils and artefacts from sand nourishments in the western Netherlands are studied.

Indexed as

ArchaeologyCitizen ScienceFossilsMachine LearningPaleontologyWorkflowBiodiversityHumansAIArchaeologyCitizen sciencePalaeontologyProject design

Identifiers

PMID39959835
PMCPMC11830368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.