bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.05.26.493642

Improving Interdisciplinary Teaching through a Complexity Lens

Neitzel, S. B.·Zhao, Y.·Diaz Eaton, C.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this article, we discuss the use of bipartite network analysis to understand and improve interdisciplinary teaching practice. We theorize mathematics and biology as part of a coevolving mutualistic ecosystem. As part of an interdisciplinary teaching initiative, we inventoried mathematics topics appearing in the marine biology classroom and their associated marine context. We then apply techniques of mutualistic bipartite networks analysis to this system to understand the use of mathematical concepts in a marine biology classroom. By analyzing the frequency and distribution of mathematics topics, we see that a variety of mathematical concepts are used across the course with most appearing only a few times. While this is an inherent trait of mutualistic coevolutionary networks, it can create a logistical challenge to supporting mathematics in the marine biology classroom. We find that marine biology topics containing the most mathematics are either close to the instructors research area or were introduced through externally developed educational resources. Finally, we analyze groups of topics that appear connected to each other more frequently to inform both interdisciplinary education development as well as disciplinary support. We also suggest ways to use network metrics to track interdisciplinary connections over time, helping us understand the impact of interventions on interdisciplinary teaching practice.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Neitzel, S. B., Zhao, Y., Diaz Eaton, C.. 2022-05-29. Improving Interdisciplinary Teaching through a Complexity Lens. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.26.493642

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Causal Language Detection using Text-Document Features: Methodology and Insights from 10 Years of Gut Microbiome Research

Detecting causal language in scientific literature is critical for understanding how research fields frame evidence and inform interventions and policies, yet existing approaches commonly rely on manual annotation. The objective of this study was to evaluate four classifiers for detecting causal language and to apply the best-performing model to assess trends in microbiome research. Microbiome research, with its rapidly expanding observational literature, provides a relevant case study. We extracted Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) features from the last three sentences of available publication abstracts and trained four classifiers (L1- and L2-regularized logistic regression, Random Forest, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting) to detect causal language. A total of 475 sentences, as determined pragmatically based on annotation feasibility and observed stabilization of model performance, were manually labeled as causal or non-causal following established guidelines for systematic evaluation of causal language in observational health research. Of these, 75% of sentences were used for training and 25% for testing. L1-regularized logistic regression achieved the highest performance (accuracy 76%, F1 72%, prevalence detection accuracy 95%, sensitivity 72%, and specificity 80%) and was applied to 20,022 human gut microbiome abstracts published between 2015 and 2025 grouped into 20 thematic topics using structural topic modeling. Predicted causal language prevalence declined from 52% to 44% between 2015 and 2018, then rose to 51% by 2025, with notable variation across topics (range: 43.1-53.3%). Temporal trends differed across subfields, with increases in Metabolic disorders, Fecal microbiota transplantation, and decreases in Biomarkers and prediction, Antibiotic resistance, and In vitro fermentation. Analysis of influential words confirmed that causal meaning is primarily driven by verbs and modifiers lexically signaling change or intervention. The proposed approach for identifying causal claims in scientific abstracts enables systematic and automated, scalable assessment of how evidence is framed. Its application to the microbiome field highlighted heterogeneity in the reporting of causal relationships and informing the interpretation of microbiome findings for clinical and public health decision-making.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Faster science, penalties in evaluation, and concerns on quality and impact: Researchers' use and perceptions of preprints

The preprint ecosystem has expanded rapidly over the past decade, fundamentally altering science communication. Yet, the scholarly community's attitudes toward this shift remain underexplored. Through a large-scale survey of US and Canadian biomedical scholars, we provide a comprehensive analysis of preprint utilization, perceived impact, and integration into academic credit systems. We find robust engagement across reading, citing, and submitting preprints; however, this activity is driven primarily by a desire for rapid dissemination rather than a foundational commitment to open science. Furthermore, while preprints are valued as networking assets, perceived career penalties during formal academic evaluations stifle broader cultural adoption. Crucially, to navigate the absence of formal peer review, scholars report a heavy reliance on author reputation as a primary heuristic for evaluating a preprint's credibility and guiding their reading and citation decisions. Notably, despite acknowledging preprints' role in accelerating knowledge sharing, scholars express significant concerns regarding fraud and misinformation, particularly amid declining public trust in science and emerging threats to scientific integrity from artificial intelligence. To resolve these tensions, the preprint ecosystem must evolve beyond prioritizing speed to foster genuine academic dialogue. Simultaneously, evaluation frameworks must adapt to the realities of preprinting, and innovative quality-control mechanisms are urgently needed to balance rapid dissemination with rigorous scientific integrity.

scientific communication and education↗