Coverage of Team Science by Public Information Officers: Content Analysis of Press Releases about the National Science Foundation Science and Technology Centers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the content of press releases from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Technology Centers (STCs) to determine how public information officers (PIOs) presented the outcomes of centers to journalists and the public. A total of 68 press releases were analyzed for type of news covered, visibility of centers and their funding agency, extent of inter-institutional cooperation in the issuance of releases, and players covered. Three-quarters of STC releases mentioned the center, but less than half mentioned the NSF STC program and one-quarter didn't mention the center name at all. PIOs covering the STCs mainly issued research-oriented press releases accredited to their own institution. There was a low level of inter-institutional cooperation, with 13% of press releases jointly issued. Compared to research results and institutional news, which together accounted for 82% of the news events, broader activities such as knowledge transfer, diversity enhancement, and education were much less visible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it