[contingencies]

iNaturalist was created by and remained a part of the California Academy of Science

I'm not sure that's the case, my impression was they simply took funding from and sheltered under the CAS until they split off to their own organization.

In their new independent structure they're claiming to be a public interest science non-profit, but as they don't publish their models or model-building-process, it's non-replicable, so in my view it's not Science, and the public never gets their hands on the product.

it sort of feels like iNaturalists goals as an organization may not be as aligned with the original charter as they once were

As another user who has contributed five digits of observations (over double yours), I couldn't agree more.

[wanderr]

Ah, you are right, I've been misinformed this whole time! Not created by Cal Academy.

I am a little unclear on what you mean by not science. The secrecy around their models certainly makes them not open, but are you saying that any research based on the data is not science?

[contingencies]

Science is systematic, evidence‑based inquiry into the natural world that produces testable explanations and predictions, and a core part of calling something “scientific” is that its claims are replicable by others.

That means, if a large part of iNaturalist's ongoing activity (which they are sheltering from government taxation under a public interest Science claim) is refining an inference model offered only as a service, it's not capital-S Science unless they make the model build path open and others can replicate and test it freely.

There's actually a fair case that it's the exact opposite, as a public encouragement to systemic ignorance and belief without evidence.