MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relative Credibility of Zoo‐Affiliated Spokespeople for Delivering Conservation Messages

2008· article· en· W1973851583 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

VenueCurator The Museum Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research CentreFraser Institute
FundersAssociation of Zoos and AquariumsInstitute of Museum and Library Services
KeywordsCredibilityWork (physics)Source credibilityJob analysisPsychologyPublic relationsSocial psychologyMarketingPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringJob satisfactionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Zoos aspire to be leaders in environmental conservation through their work in environmental education. This study examined whether a spokesperson's job title impacts credibility when conservation messages are delivered to the public. Visitors to a zoo were presented with seven environmental messages. They then selected—from a list of zoo‐related job titles—the one they deemed most credible and the one considered least credible. Statistical analysis established that three “credible” job titles were selected significantly more often, while three were generally selected as “least credible.” The authors demonstrate that some job titles have greater credibility than others among visitors, and recommend that more attention be given to this variable if attitude and behavior change are desired outcomes. They caution that while source credibility may vary based on job title, the influence it has on persuasiveness is yet to be determined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.241 · 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