Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 5 from: Bloom D, Thomer A, Vaidya G, Guralnick R, Russell L (2012) From documents to datasets: A MediaWiki-based method of annotating and extracting species observations in century-old field notebooks. ZooKeys 209: 235-253. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3247

Figure 5 - An example of how a location (Big Thompson Creek near Loveland), a date (Sunday, June 10, 1906), and a taxon (Cottonwood, genus Populus) are grouped from across multiple pages.

Figure 4 from: Bloom D, Thomer A, Vaidya G, Guralnick R, Russell L (2012) From documents to datasets: A MediaWiki-based method of annotating and extracting species observations in century-old field notebooks. ZooKeys 209: 235-253. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3247

Figure 4 - Editing a notebook page on Wikisource. This screenshot shows side-by-side transcription and wiki markup syntax.

Figure 2 from: Bloom D, Thomer A, Vaidya G, Guralnick R, Russell L (2012) From documents to datasets: A MediaWiki-based method of annotating and extracting species observations in century-old field notebooks. ZooKeys 209: 235-253. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3247

Figure 2 - Index page for Notebook #1. Each Index page corresponds to a multipage file. The Index page displays volume metadata and links to sections of the notebook, while also providing links out to each notebook page and color-coding to determine which pages have been already transcribed and proofed.

Figure 1 from: Bloom D, Thomer A, Vaidya G, Guralnick R, Russell L (2012) From documents to datasets: A MediaWiki-based method of annotating and extracting species observations in century-old field notebooks. ZooKeys 209: 235-253. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3247

Figure 1 - Web browser view of a scanned page of Henderson's journal displayed side-by-side with transcriptions and annotations using the MediaWiki Proofread Page extension.

Figure 3 from: Bloom D, Thomer A, Vaidya G, Guralnick R, Russell L (2012) From documents to datasets: A MediaWiki-based method of annotating and extracting species observations in century-old field notebooks. ZooKeys 209: 235-253. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3247

Figure 3 - Henderson's first sentence. "Boulder, Colo. July 28, 1905. Saw Say [sic] Phoebe and siskins, [American] Robins, [Northern] Flicker."

Figure 2 from: Lepage D, Vaidya G, Guralnick R (2014) Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys 420: 117-135. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.420.7089

Figure 2 - The relationships between the taxonomic entities related to the Vireo solitarius superspecies. Numbers under each name refer to Avibase IDs. The concept for the nominal plumbeus sec. Oberholser, 1974 is therefore distinct from the concept for the nominal subspecies plumbeus when jacksoni is subsumed. It is worth noting however that the recognition or not of jacksoni does not affect the higher related concepts, such as the plumbeus species, any of its other subspecies, or the rest of the Vireo solitarius complex because they are either orthogonal to those alternative arrangements or they completely include both. In the database model (Fig. 1), these trees are maintained with the parent-child relationship table in which each Avibase ID only needs to identify its immediate parent, while other relationships can be calculated programmatically.

Figure 1 from: Lepage D, Vaidya G, Guralnick R (2014) Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys 420: 117-135. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.420.7089

Figure 1 - Simplified schema of Avibase primary tables, The Avibase ID table is the central element of Avibase, to which all other concepts are related, and which aims to represent all distinct taxonomic concepts ever published for birds. Published taxonomic concepts (species and subspecies, as well as subspecies groups in some cases), along with their scientific and common names as recognized in the publication, are each mapped to a single Avibase ID. A table of parent-child relationships is used to describe relationships between different Avibase IDs. Because all taxonomic concepts are congruent with Avibase IDs, relationships among taxonomic concepts themselves are not needed. Biological properties (geographic range, life-history, etc.) are linked directly to Avibase ID, as are synonyms, a table that partly overlaps with the names used by taxonomic concepts, but that can also extend to vernacular names in multiple languages. Name concepts, which relate to names attached to original type specimens, are a property of taxonomic concepts, and can themselves be linked to ITIS Taxonomic Serial Number (TSN) identifiers.

Figure 4 from: Lepage D, Vaidya G, Guralnick R (2014) Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys 420: 117-135. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.420.7089

Figure 4 - Fractional weights (w) can be used to validate the taxonomic arrangements within a particular authority. In this example, in any valid listing of the concepts within an authority, the sum of all taxonomic concepts related to the superspecies Vireo solitarius should add up to 1.0 at both the species and the subspecies levels.

Figure 3 from: Lepage D, Vaidya G, Guralnick R (2014) Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys 420: 117-135. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.420.7089

Figure 3 - The relationships between Pterodroma arminjoniana, Pterodroma heraldica and Pterodroma atrata, with two alternative arrangements (A and B) of biological concepts found in taxonomic authorities. Concepts with the same lowercase letters in brackets in the two diagrams represent congruent circumscriptions.