dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
I argue that the vocabulary of attachment and gifting of data more accurately describes what participation in Faune France represents. My hypothesis is that participation in Faune France lies in a desire to contribute through a pragmatic activity, an attachment to the object of interest and an inclination toward giving. By definition, contributing to Faune France is non-monetary, even for professionals. No one is paid for the data they enter on Faune France. The language of economic or symbolic 'interest'  (Buhot 1985) , scientific capital  (Edwards et al. 2018) , or even social capital  (Bell et al. 2008 ) is relatively foreign to the exchange that occurs on Faune France, which is instead based on a freely given act. To do justice to the meaning attached to contributing to the database requires this free act of volunteering to be taken seriously, not understood as false consciousness, strategic behavior (e.
These infrastructure studies focus on the deconstruction of the database architecture, but seldom analyze the behavior or identity of the users. Describing engagement is problematic with Faune France as there is a relative absence of a naturalist social community or bonding. Faune France was conceived without an ad hoc chat system, in contrast to other digital platforms such as that launched by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. People participating in Faune France hardly know each other and the system of distinctions that occurs in naturalist clubs (e. g. spontaneous classification regarding who is an expert and who is not) is largely absent. i This involvement in an unknown community requires a specific attitude toward one's engagement, which I suggest describing as attachment in the sense of Hennion  (Hennion 2007, Gomart and Hennion 1999) , as well as indebtedness toward others and animals.
What counts is the attraction to -and the perceived responsibility for -the object of passion: music or drugs for Hennion and Gomart, birds or mammals in this case. To explore these questions, this analysis starts by describing the conflicting social interpretations of Faune France as digital citizen science, and then develops a theoretical framework based on a sociological survey of a sample of contributors to this French database. Focusing on the question of equality and inequality in citizen science contribution, so pervasive in social analyses by both proponents and critics of public participation in scientific research, this article then discusses the terms of attachment and indebtedness, in contrast to the traditional opposing views of this community of amateur biodiversity researchers.
Analytical perspectives Of the approaches that rely on a limited set of social factors to explain engagement in biodiversity databases, two conflicting reasons are typically invoked. Open access enthusiasts, particularly advocates of participatory science, argue for the decompartmentalization of those contributing to scientific production and the potential for broad-based and ongoing participation in scientific activity  (Dickinson and Bonney 2012a). Advocates of analysis based on social variables adopt a critical discourse on technology-driven inequality  (Hacklay 2018 , Edwards et al. 2018 ) in terms of access, engagement and interest shaped by a science that reproduces the boundary with civil society. The very infrastructure of citizen science, simultaneously dedicated to science production, citizen involvement and informal learning, transforms a theoretical question -science versus society, as well as the old assumption that scientists are exempt of emotions, social influences or bias -into a practical one.
(2016)  adopt a deterministic vision, stating that: Some participants become involved because they want to contribute to scientific research or to  [protect]  the environment. Others are motivated by an interest in the scientific topic, in the specific project or in science in general. Other reasons to participate are because volunteers find the citizen science activities enjoyable or fun. Another reason may be because they like the opportunity to get involved with other people with similar interests, either tangibly or virtually through blogs and forums. (p. 47) In the context of citizen science databases, this positivist version of action emphasizes motivation as an initial intention, at the first contact with citizen science or the subsequent reporting following this. The vocabulary of motives aims to order engagement in citizen science according to reasons, which then define profiles.
A sociological study of Faune France Faune France is a national biodiversity database that aims to record all taxa of fauna. It was organized by a consortium of non-profit organizations and is operated by the French Bird Protection League (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux: LPO), which was created at the beginning of the 20th century. Since 2015, Faune France has been governed by a steering committee made up of all its member organizations (49), with the help of a technical committee called Cotech. The web database was launched in June 2017. Since then, more than 10 million data records have been collected, plus 1 million photographs, from more than 25,000 contributors. This sociological study of the contributors to Faune France began in 2018. I have been a member of the LPO since the 1990s v and work in a team of researchers that includes an engineer in social statistics and a geographer.
The first step of the study involved conducting interviews of all Cotech members. The data posted in 2018 was then analyzed to create profiles of the participants according to the metadata left by their connection to the database. Next, a questionnaire was designed that was filled out by 1469 participants, ensuring the statistical validity of the responses. vi This body of data was then used to investigate the genesis of this information infrastructure and its inversion  (Bowker and Star 1999) , its relative success in terms of its public, and the importance of its role as a civil society organization in the production of biodiversity data in France (Fortier and Alphandéry 2011). Like the British Trust of Ornithology and other NGOs or platforms, it is not relevant to describe Faune France as a top-down or bottom-up organization  (Lawrence 2006).
As previously mentioned, this infrastructure has no center and no periphery. It operates with numerous local web portals, each with their own specificities (such as the possibility to report on fish on certain portals and not on others), but all made interoperable by their use of the same Visionature platform. Four levels of portals are available for recording data: the 'Naturalist' smartphone application, a 'Oiseaux des jardins' portal for garden birds, numerous 'Faune locale' portals for local fauna, and 'Faune France' at a national level. It is more useful to describe its origin and development in terms of a mix of networking of existing local naturalist organization databases and its openness to the general public via digital technology and the cloud. The members of the Cotech have the role of ensuring this dual nature of the database.
While many consider the database's open access an advantage, this aspect also triggers criticism by some Cotech members concerning the private status of the data collected, the unequal ability of the public to interpret it, and the necessity for each member organization to adapt the data to different targets according to the stratified nature of the information demand. Faune France's heterogeneous nature reflects its history. It arose from a network of naturalist organizations (around 30) that the LPO first brought together in a meeting in November 2013 with the aim of creating a monitoring system of fauna in France. The Faune France database was the main tool of this monitoring infrastructure. It has been instrumental in slowly increasing the interoperability of most French naturalist associations' fauna databases developed locally since the end of the 1990s.
The solution of a unique, global database came from the Swiss firm Biolovision, which devised an internet platform called Visionature for submitting, managing, circulating and banking raw data between naturalists. The platform was adopted in the Alps region in 2003 and spread to other regional organizations shortly thereafter before becoming the national standard. It drew on internet developments to dematerialize the storage capacity of data on the cloud. Only later was it promoted as a portal for the public visualization of data, though its users challenge its performance in this capacity even today. In 2015, an organizational charter was established to register the associations that wanted to be involved in Faune France and use Visionature. Registration and compliance with the charter are mandatory to take part in the management of the database.
This organization is unusual in comparison to other large biodiversity databases (such as the Local Environmental Record Centres established by local authorities and the National Biodiversity Network in the United Kingdom  [Lawrence 2010 ] or the Cornell Lab of Ornithology), and leads to the cooperation between organizations of different sizes, practices, scientific fields, revenue types and philosophies. It is worth noting that the local origin of the Faune France database mirrors the embeddedness of its data: it was produced by local networks of amateurs who know each other and who are used to producing data in relation to managing social status, affective relationships, etc. (Fortier and Alphandéry 2011). At the same time, Faune France has evolved from this database model based on the internal management of amateurs toward an infrastructural database that is online and open access, which involves another type of sociable capacity, other ways of legitimizing information, and another interpretation of raw data.
Involvement in Faune France and the question of equality Contributing to Faune France databases requires only registering online, spotting taxa, and reporting them on the website. In this way, participants collectively orient the data gathered by the platform, and the platform frames what is collected. This dual process has been described as platformization  (Hagen 2020). The architecture embodies the promise of open access, disembedding the strong ties of naturalist associations and, presumably, freeing up involvement in naturalist reporting and loosening its commitments. This opens its scope to new users, creating a contagion of practice  (Triezenberg et al. 2012). As a member of the Cotech explained, the value of data provided by an amateur to a naturalist association was previously embedded in a context of relationships and the status the amateur had with the association.
The untold story of Faune France: attachment to fauna A critical dimension of Faune France reporting is the general disinterest toward the embeddedness of data, present in the way the protocol is organized and perceived. One question in our survey asked contributors if they would like the database to consider other features or aspects of their involvement. Only 10% declared they wanted to add other details, a low level of concern that I will come back to. Below is a list of some of the suggested additions. • Bird behavior -detailed description when not sure of the species • Interactions in which the observations take place (with family, colleagues or friends) as well as aesthetic judgements • Ability to directly add details about the use of playback (playing a recording of a birdcall), for example • Better data exploration and visualization (for example, currently there is an inability to zoom to a local area to see all the observation sites of a species or to sort all the data by bird pellet analysis: this prevents using Faune France for personal studies) • For insects, the ability to add notes in a specific field about host plants • Weather conditions during the observation • Details about the climate, human presence and practices that have an impact on nature (e.
The rather small percentage of participants who felt additions could be made to the information required or permitted by the Faune France database can be explained by the fact that skilled participants develop a mastery of tacit meaning and know-how that gives them a common ground with other members of this loose community, obfuscating the disembeddedness that it requires. ix This disinterest in process diverges from the claims of open access advocates, for whom a major goal of citizen science is to sensitize the public to knowledge production and biodiversity conservation. Indeed, if sensitizing involves raising consciousness about scientific work, biodiversity classification and so on -that is, emancipation from a state of ignorance -the disinterest mentioned above indicates an ability to shut down channels of consciousness: for example, the retrievability of tacit knowledge once learned.
x The more participants contribute to Faune France, the more they are knowledgeable, the more they are likely to feel obligation to report, like a debt felt for fauna; but also the more they are cautious to report properly considering data sensitivity an issue. But there is another dimension of obligation and concealment of data practiced by participants. The open release of information on nests, or the spotting of rare birds or mammals can lead to the database being used by people who do not feel the same debt to nature that the participants share for the most part. These users do not feel compelled by the same cautionary behavior toward nature and can undermine the meaning of the gift given by Faune France participants. The following quote from a contributor illustrates their reasoning why the gift should only be transmitted to strangers sharing the same sense of gift-receiving and gift-giving: Through personal experience, following the disclosure by a friend of the location of a rare species during a sensitive period (feeding the young), we saw people from all over France show up, with a more than dubious respect for the species (even though they were from the LPO) … it was a lesson for me! Unfortunately, many of my friends have had similar experiences.
Discussion and conclusion This article presents a sociological study of contributors to a biodiversity database, exploring aspects seldom considered by those who promote citizen science. In the final section, I would like to discuss the global implications of the paper's focus on attachment and indebtedness of amateur naturalists. The relative disinterest of those who promote citizen science concerning contributors' characteristics arises from a general priority given to raw data. In contrast to findings by digital citizen science proponents, the analysis of this paper focuses on attachments, such as the different forms of cognitive and emotional acquaintance with nature, which are traditionally reserved to metadata. For Geoffrey Bowker, "Metadata ('data about data') is the technical term for all the information that a single piece of data on the internet carries with it in order to provide sufficient context for another user to be able to first locate it and then use it"  (Bowker 2008, p.
116). While metadata is generally used only to reduce friction in the circulation of raw data, I have operated an infrastructural inversion  (Bowker and Star 1999)  to put it at the forefront, transforming what is usually omitted into a valid end product of a database. This inversion is a methodological shift restoring the embedded and contingent features of what the infrastructure presents as a fact. It inverts data that is taken for granted as an unquestionable token in the sense of  Rosenberg (2013). In this way, my analysis proposes a different take on data compared to traditional studies of proponents of digital citizen science. In addition, as mentioned in the empirical section, the paper looks at another kind of disinterest to what is embedded in data production: the disinterest of contributors in reflecting on their practice.
38)  or truly empowered. I argue that these opposing perspectives on citizen science cannot be decided a priori and risk putting each contribution in a position of being pigeonholed in one category or another. The urge to report and the risk attached to this accounts for contributors' dynamic practice and the questions that arise during their reporting activities much better than a static explanation in terms of social disposition, opportunity structures or motivation profiles. Contributors to Faune France are aware of their debt to nature and the possible misuse of their data as a commodity or for predatory behavior. The voluntary nature of most sightings reported in Faune France is a way to render this connection to nature and to other naturalists indefinite. This restores the full dimension of risk in engaging in Faune France to offer a digital contribution to a database linking scientists or amateurs who mostly remain unknown to each other.
In such volunteering and engaging freely in nature observation, whether the animal is triggering the passionate reaction or the amateur is driven by a personal impetus for contact with the animal is something that must be left open to interpretation  (Latour 1999). This very undecidability is what is passed on as a gift, usually tacitly. This paper is a tribute to citizen science, and in particular to Faune France. My hope is that as we work to improve citizen biodiversity databases, there will be room to invent better ways to acknowledge the role of participants while understanding the embeddedness of their practice as an attachment to nature and a gift to society and science at large. i While 80% of the respondents in the survey presented in this article stated that they shared their data, twice as many did this via an internet portal (67%) than between friends and family (37%), although these categories were not mutually exclusive (several answers to each question were allowed).
This trend was also found in Alender's survey ( 2016, p. 2) on citizen science water-quality monitoring. ii Half (50%) of the users of Faune France are retired, based at home or are students. iii For example, an altruist "has the goal of increasing the welfare of another individual or group of individuals. Collectivism has the goal of increasing the welfare of a specific group that one belongs to"  (Rotman et al. 2012, p. 218 ). iv As an example, until 2018, the papers published based on the SPIPOLL (Photographic Monitoring of Pollinating Insects) participatory science project launched by France's National Museum of Natural History focused only on insect behavior, with no mention of the social aspect of observation  (Charvolin 2019, p. 53 ). v This author was also able to use his own common sense as a Faune France practitioner to study the epistemological organization of sighting and reporting data in the database (Law and Lynch 1990).
vi To conduct our survey by questionnaire on contributors to Faune France, we drew a random sample of 5000 people from the 25,182 active Faune France contributors in 2018, taking into account the type of contributor (less than 100 observations reported, between 100 and 1000 observations reported, and more than 1000 observations reported). We received responses from 1469 people: a response rate of 29. 4%. A weighting variable was calculated to fit the responses according to the type of contributor. Thus the data is representative of the overall population of contributors in 2018. vii Of the 'Oiseaux des jardins' contributors, 45% stated that they used a protocol to observe and report data. viii Of the total respondents, 60% stated that they systematically or occasionally used a list survey, i.
e. they listed all the species spotted in one sighting and not just the one that was the focus of the observation (SOFT Report 2020). ix Garfinkel calls this the "'uninteresting' essential reflexivity of accounts"  (Garfinkel 1967, p. 7). For those involved in 'doing', analyzing how they accomplished this action did not much matter, aside from the standardized way data was collected. x The survey also included a question on respondents' knowledge about the fact that Faune France itself conceals data considered sensitive. The results showed that avid reporters on Faune France are aware both that the data they report can be sensitive and also that Faune France hides sensitive data. xi Antoine Hennion argues that "attachment is indefinite and must remain this way"  (Hennion 2012 ). xi "The temptation to idealism perhaps comes from the very word 'data', which is the worst possible description of what the ordinary cognitive ability of scholars, scientists and intellectuals is applied to.
Text-mining on food ingredient lists Type of data Tabular data in csv files, Parsing algorithm written in Python, Benchmark method How data were acquired The primary data were retrieved from MINTEL-GNPD Database as a csv file thanks to their database query engine. This access was allowed through a subscription to MINTEL-GNPD. The secondary dataset was built by applying our parsing algorithm to the primary data. Data format Filtered, csv file, Python module Description of data collection Primary data were retrieved thanks to the MINTEL Boolean query search engine. Secondary data were obtained by running our parsing algorithm and are presented in a csv file. Data source location INRAE Auzeville-Tolosane France Primary data sources: Excerpt of the MINTEL -GNPD (Global New Products Database), gathering food product innovations containing pulses during the last decade (2009-2019) on a European scale.
Food ingredient parsing Text mining Pulses -legumes Market biodiversity Processed food Food science and technology a b s t r a c t There is a lack of methods and tools to reveal robust information on the ingredients used in packaged foods. To tackle this challenge, we developed an original method to parse ingredient lists of packaged foods. We built a dataset of food product innovations with their parsed ingredient lists. We explain the parser algorithm used to provide this dataset; and a benchmark method assessing the performance of the parsing techniques applied on those food ingredient lists. The primary data we used to test and apply this method were retrieved from MINTEL-GNPD. These data cover new food products containing pulse ingredients launched on European markets over the last decade.
But there is a vaster array of food product innovations between these two opposing main food paradigms. In addition, several market studies suggest that current development on pulses is mainly focused on the pea, thus neglecting other pulses  [7]. But no dataset exists for analysing product innovations containing pulses to further the debate and assess how pulses are developing in food products. To tackle this challenge, we retrieved data from the Mintel GNPD 1  ("Global New Products Database"), a commercial food database tracking food products launches, by those containing pulse ingredients. Our dataset  [8]  [dataset] provides an organised data table of detailed information extracted by parsing the primary data printed on the packaging of food products launched on the market over the last decade.
It reflects the ingredients that compose those food products. Primary data are described in Figs. 2  and 5  , and the tools used to harvest them in Figs. 3  and 4  (presenting the search engine and query used). Working on the food products ingredients list was challenging. For the moment, no common presentation system exists for food ingredients  [9]  , which means ingredient listing is idiosyncratic and depends very much on different national regulations and each firms' own habits and methods. Numerous difficulties arise from this heterogeneity when it comes to automating textual processing of food ingredient lists. This may explain why very few tools exist in scientific literature for such tasks. The most well-known food databases -the USDA's 2  and OpenFoodFact 3  -have developed their own specific web service or framework  [10]  for retrieving data gathered by those platforms.