Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42525604›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

iNaturalist mammal observations classified by evidence type.

Mohammad Alyetama, Alex J Jensen, Yakira Jackson, Jane Widness, Roland Kays, Benjamin R Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Mohammad AlyetamaDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behavior, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America.
Alex J JensenNorth Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.
Yakira JacksonCollege of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.
Jane WidnessDepartment of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Roland KaysNorth Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2947-6665
Benjamin R GoldsteinNorth Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8015-7494

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Citizen ScienceMammalsAnimalsMachine LearningMetadata

Identifiers

PMID42525604
PMCPMC13419177

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.