MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025944750 · doi:10.4236/sm.2012.22025

Means of Knowledge Dissemination: Are the <i>Café Scientifique</i> and the Artistic Performance Equally Effective?

2012· article· en· W2025944750 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology Mind · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsThe artsPsychologyDisseminationSociologySocial psychologyComputer scienceVisual artsArtTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasing number of health researchers are opting for innovative approaches to communicate research findings. This article compares two methods for disseminating findings to various audiences: the Café scientifique and the artistic performance. Analysis of surveys completed by 78 respondents indicates that the artistic performance is more effective in communicating research findings based on three of the four evaluation criteria used: it generates more questions and emotion among audience members and influences a greater number of individuals to alter their initial understanding of and opinion on an issue. The Café scientifique and the artistic performance both help participants to better understand the topic examined. The arts, however, shine a different light on the issue.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.228 · 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