MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W280675345

Learning to Swim with Salmon: Pilot Evaluation of Journalism as a Method to Create Information for Public Engagement

2007· article· en· W280675345 sur OpenAlex
David Secko

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClimate Change Communication and Perception
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic engagementPublic relationsDemocracyCitizen journalismJargonPolitical scienceDeliberationSociologyPoliticsLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Democratic public engagement is an endeavor that must cope with information. In their recent typology of 102 engagement mechanisms, Rowe and Frewer highlight this importance and state: According to such an information flow perspective, an exercise's effectiveness may be ascertained by the efficiency with which full, relevant information is elicited from all appropriate sources, transferred to (and processed by) all appropriate recipients, and combined (when required) to give an aggregate/consensual response. (1) Hence, in part, it is information that must flow and be taken up for democratic public engagement to achieve its goals. (2) However, how best to create this 'engaging information' is a challenging problem. For instance, in the case of democratic engagement over the governance of genomics--the study of 'genes and their functions'--much of the information required for democratic public engagement is scientific and hence conceptually complex, as well as riddled with technical jargon and the vested interests of experts in developing their own field. This information is therefore not easily presented to citizens with often limited technical expertise. Consequently, efforts to engage citizens about genomics need to answer i) what information someone would need to effectively participate in democratic deliberation on a given topic, and ii) how to obtain, assess, and present this information in a manner that encourages public engagement with the information and each other? This paper presents a brief summary of early experimentation with the use of journalism as a technique to cope with the above difficulties and produce information useful for democratic engagement on the topic of salmon genomics. Journalism is a widely variant profession, but for the purposes of this paper is defined as storytelling, in a truth-seeking tradition, that aims to serve citizens without a legal foundation. (3) As a research technique, journalism has similarities to qualitative methods (4) in requiring (i) restraint, (ii) direct observation, and (iii) continual examination of a topic in light of new observations to a previously established news standard. (5) With this in mind, journalism was used as a research method in an initial pilot study that aimed to create print media stories with an increased potential to engage citizens over salmon genomics. Two test stories were developed within a hypothetical situation where a local news media outlet decides to write a 650 word story on a science project involving salmon genomics that may help in developing disease resistant fish. These stories were created by drawing on interviews, theories of science communication, and scientific expertise through collaboration with salmon researchers from the consortium for Genomics Research on All Salmonids Project [cGRASP]. (6) Briefly, the two test stories differed in their philosophical stance on the role of science journalism in a democracy, the first being a traditional objective and information-based story (transmission model), and the second being a non-traditional subjective and educational-based story (engagement model). (7) These philosophical stances were then operationalized into 13 guiding principles for story creation. For instance, the transmission model set out to: (i) portray science as fixed and certain, (ii) focus a story on events/publications/media relations, (iii) legitimatize itself in the science itself, and (iv) take its purpose as the transmission of information. While, the engagement model set out to: (i) portray science as uncertain/embedded in society, (ii) focus a story on the consequences of choices, (iii) legitimatize itself in personal knowledge, and (iv) take its purpose as active engagement and education in support of democracy. While a detailed analysis of the two stories created is outside the scope of this paper, the introduction to the articles is telling of their differences. …

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,037
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,993
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0370,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,748
Tête enseignante GPT0,613
Écart entre enseignants0,135 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle