ArticlePloS one2026
iNaturalist mammal observations classified by evidence type.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Community Science: Big Insights From Small Mammal Data.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecologists show growing interest in observational data generated by citizen scientists. For mammals, the largest citizen science platform is iNaturalist, which has more than 5 million Research Grade observations globally represented through images of living animals, dead animals, tracks, and scat. These different types of evidence could give insight into the underlying sampling paradigm for an observation (e.g., dead animals might be more likely to be reported near roads) and thus may be useful for scientific applications of these data. However, while iNaturalist allows users to annotate observations by evidence type, many observations are not annotated. We use machine learning to classify the evidence types associated with observations of North American mammals in iNaturalist, adding metadata that can be used to subset data or to model multiple observation processes. Here, we present a dataset containing metadata augmenting 1.33 million North American mammal iNaturalist observations with evidence type. Each observation is categorized as either live animal, dead animal, tracks, scat, or other sign, and an associated confidence score is provided.
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.