To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data.
To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/database/bax100
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sterner BW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Franz NM;Sterner BW
对综合生物多样性数据质量的日益担忧正在降低人们对大规模数据网络的信任。聚合网站经常建议生物学家与原始数据提供商合作，从源头纠正错误，以此回应人们对数据质量的担忧。我们表明，这一战略系统性地没有对不信任的根本原因进行全面诊断。特别是，对聚集器的信任不仅是来源提供给聚集器的数据信号质量的特征，也是聚合过程的社会设计的结果，以及所产生的个体数据贡献者和聚集器之间的权力平衡。后者通过淡化它们生成的分类层次结构的作者和重要性而造成了责任缺口，这些分类层次结构实际上是在数据结构化过程的核心运行的新的分类理论。用于共享事件记录的达尔文核心标准在维持问责差距方面发挥了被低估的作用，因为该标准缺乏保持提交供聚合的数据包在分类上的一致性所需的句法结构，可能导致没有单个来源支持的推断。由于高质量的数据包可以反映相互竞争和相互冲突的分类，即尚未确定的系统研究，因此在设计生物多样性数据一体化时必须考虑到这种多样性。展望未来，一项关键的指示是开发新的技术途径和社会激励措施，鼓励专家直接为确认分类上连贯的数据包作出贡献，以此作为更大、更值得信赖的汇总过程的一部分。
Growing concerns about the quality of aggregated biodiversity data are lowering trust in large-scale data networks. Aggregators frequently respond to quality concerns by recommending that biologists work with original data providers to correct errors ‘at the source.’ We show that this strategy falls systematically short of a full diagnosis of the underlying causes of distrust. In particular, trust in an aggregator is not just a feature of the data signal quality provided by the sources to the aggregator, but also a consequence of the social design of the aggregation process and the resulting power balance between individual data contributors and aggregators. The latter have created an accountability gap by downplaying the authorship and significance of the taxonomic hierarchies—frequently called ‘backbones’—they generate, and which are in effect novel classification theories that operate at the core of data-structuring process. The Darwin Core standard for sharing occurrence records plays an under-appreciated role in maintaining the accountability gap, because this standard lacks the syntactic structure needed to preserve the taxonomic coherence of data packages submitted for aggregation, potentially leading to inferences that no individual source would support. Since high-quality data packages can mirror competing and conflicting classifications, i.e. unsettled systematic research, this plurality must be accommodated in the design of biodiversity data integration. Looking forward, a key directive is to develop new technical pathways and social incentives for experts to contribute directly to the validation of taxonomically coherent data packages as part of a greater, trustworthy aggregation process.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
14.9
作者：
Clark K;Karsch-Mizrachi I;Lipman DJ;Ostell J;Sayers EW
通讯作者：
Sayers EW
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Ballesteros-Mejia, Liliana;Kitching, Ian J.;Beck, Jan
通讯作者：
Beck, Jan
影响因子：
1
作者：
De Cruz, Helen;De Smedt, Johan
通讯作者：
De Smedt, Johan
影响因子：
--
作者：
Fellows, Jennifer Jill
通讯作者：
Fellows, Jennifer Jill
DOI：
10.1080/13658816.2015.1077962
发表时间：
2016-01-02
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Belbin, Lee;Williams, Kristen J.
通讯作者：
Williams, Kristen J.