Communicating environmental geoscience – An international survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
challenges in the area of communication not identified by these previous studies. Previous workEarly surveys examining communication and scientists were specific to the USA (Harz and Chappell, 1998) and United Kingdom (Royal Society, 2006); and were generalized to include all scientists.Peters et al. (2008) surveyed stem cell researchers and epidemiologists in five leading research countries on media relationships.The study of Harz and Chappell (1998) focused on the relationship between science and the media, and surveyed both scientists and journalists.Their wide-ranging report emphasized the serious gulf between media and science, and identified this as a critical problem for the future as in an increasingly technological society, the media form the most important means of informing the public about science.Together with numerous recommendations they suggest that -Scientists and journalists should begin a dialogue to educate each other about the ways in which their needs and the needs of the public can be met.-The scientific community should train communicators to speak for different scientific disciplines.-Publishers of scientific papers should require authors to include summaries of their findings-written in plain language-that put the work in perspective and explain its relevance and importance.The Royal Society study was designed to examine the attitudes and activities of scientists and engineers towards engaging and communicating with the public.This involved a survey of nearly 1500 scientists.The authors noted an increase in public engagement over the six year period since a previous similar survey but were concerned that "that many scientists see the main reason for engaging with the public as the need to 'educate' them rather than to debate, listen and learn as part of a genuine dialogue."A number of recommendations were made including: -More young scientists should be encouraged to be involved in public engagement activities.-Institutions and funding bodies need to provide better support for scientists undertaking public engagement.-There should be greater rewards and recognition for public engagement work.-There should be better coordination between organizations working on public engagement.Communication is a major barrier in using the results of environmental geoscience to inform public debate and policy.The results of an international survey of environmental geoscientists on communication issues are discussed.The results suggest that environmental geoscientists recognize that communicating with media and public is important.They believe that their research is not too complex or difficult for the public to understand, and they generally feel well equipped to engage the public.Few of them, however, are trained in this area, and most are interested in taking courses to improve their skills.Their research is important in developing policy but often they find it challenging to communicate with policy makers and politicians.Thus their research is not always used effectively in developing policy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».