MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541583664 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2014v39n4a2751

Reflecting on the <i>Science</i> in Science Communication

2014· article· en· W1541583664 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kelly Bronson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Science communicationNegotiationSociologyOpen scienceEpistemologyScientific communicationCitizen scienceScience educationSocial scienceComputer scienceBiologyPedagogyPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Science communication is often understood as the transmission of facts to ignorant audiences. Science and Technology Studies allows a different perspective on science—as open to negotiation with other knowledges and institutions—and therefore a different perspective on its communication. Within an STS perspective, what counts as scientific fact or legitimate expertise takes shape within communicative acts. This article demonstrates the analytical purchase given by taking such an approach to science communication by applying it to a case analysis of biotechnology resistance on the Canadian Prairie.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.505
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.023 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207