MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1904970715 · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/303

What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model

2000· article· en· W1904970715 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Understanding of Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyTheme (computing)Scientific literatureSociology of scientific knowledgeSocial scienceEpistemologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, scientific culture has become a theme much discussed at all levels of public discourse. All scientific and technological policies developed in the last few years in OECD countries have included scientific culture as one of their aims, principles, or objectives. Despite the ubiquity of the term “scientific culture,” there is little agreement on its content. Definitions and understandings of what a scientific culture is vary across countries, groups, and individuals. There is also no consensus on how to measure scientific culture. The present paper addresses the question “what is a scientific culture?”. It presents a multidimensional model wherein scientific culture is defined as having two dimensions: individual and social. It then discusses how the model can be used to define indicators of scientific culture and to understand recent developments regarding the role of scientists in the diffusion of scientific culture.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.565
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.153 · 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