Thank you for the feedback, I'd love to see your thing and what angle you're focusing on. I see what you mean, but I've never trusted Claude to do analysis. And I'm still only trusting it to help me build acceptance criteria that I can validate against a multitude of region-specific sources for different data points:
What is your skepticism based on? If you've identified a gap I'd be very obviously interested to close it. But if you think I'm allowing Claude to editorialize without verification, then I can assure you I'm not. I've definitely caught it trying to skip steps and "leave out" verification steps, especially for new region coverage where we have insufficient data for a clear cut boolean answer.
And like everything, I keep expanding the rings of what I cross-reference for each region. Hopefully the more keen eyes on this project will mean folks can spot fallacies and holes. But to be frank, I'm in this for the long run so I very mulch welcome it :-)
- host plants (e.g. European caterpillar counts via Gaytán et al: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.73004)
- food sources
- pollen interactions
- broadly documented wildlife & plant dependencies
- etc
What is your skepticism based on? If you've identified a gap I'd be very obviously interested to close it. But if you think I'm allowing Claude to editorialize without verification, then I can assure you I'm not. I've definitely caught it trying to skip steps and "leave out" verification steps, especially for new region coverage where we have insufficient data for a clear cut boolean answer.
And like everything, I keep expanding the rings of what I cross-reference for each region. Hopefully the more keen eyes on this project will mean folks can spot fallacies and holes. But to be frank, I'm in this for the long run so I very mulch welcome it :-)
PS: https://github.com/olivierlacan/indigene/blob/main/DATA_SOUR... might be a good one to focus on if you hadn't picked it up yet