Exploring factors predicting scientists’ intentions to participate in crisis communication during the COVID-19 pandemic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study adopted a questionnaire design. We commissioned two leading WeChat public accounts (social media-based media outlets) that primarily target scientists – iScientist (WeChat ID: IamaScientist) and Fanpu (the Chinese name of the public account, which can be literally translated to “Returning to theoretical purity”, WeChat ID: fanpu2019) – to distribute the online questionnaire from February 19, 2020, when China was still suffering COVID-19 and the pandemic was beginning to spread in other places around the world. Public accounts on WeChat are social media channels that are widely adopted across China. With 1.112 billion monthly active users in the first quarter of 2019, WeChat is China's largest social media platform(Statista, 2020). Both iScientist and Fanpu had more than 100,000 subscribers on WeChat, mainly scientists, engineers, and doctoral students. The advertisement for the survey and the link to the questionnaire were posted in Chinese by the two publications and distributed in iScientist’s weekly E-newsletters among its registered readers (Fanpu didn’t provide E-newsletters), with the title highlighting that the survey focused on scientists’ communication behaviors. The questionnaire was distributed through both Qualtrics.com, an international survey platform (used initially out of concern about potential censorship in China at the onset of the pandemic), and Wjx.cn, a leading Chinese survey site. Data from the two platforms were combined into a single sample. The survey was anonymous, and the introduction clearly stated that participation was voluntary, that completion of the survey implied consent, and that respondents could withdraw at any time. Respondents who completed the questionnaire were offered a complimentary electronic book on science communication skills. The survey remained open for four weeks and was closed after sufficient data had been collected (856 completed questionnaires). We first excluded respondents who spent too little time completing the survey (≤300 seconds), and obtained a total of 802 valid questionnaires. Although the survey invitation specified that we were recruiting scientists—referring, in the Chinese context, primarily to natural science researchers—some ineligible participants still responded. We therefore screened out humanities and social science researchers, as well as non-research professionals (e.g., executives at research institutions), who numbered 44, accounting for about 5.5% of valid respondents, because their perspectives on emergency communication may differ substantially from those of natural scientists. The final dataset included 758 valid responses, with over 300 collected via Qualtrics.com and more than 450 via Wjx.cn. The questionnaire is detailed in the Supplementary material.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,020 | 0,038 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».