MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029183457 · doi:10.3200/joee.37.2.37-48

Attitudes Toward Invertebrates: Are Educational "Bug Banquets" Effective?

2006· article· en· W2029183457 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

VenueThe Journal of Environmental Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsThe King's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBanquetAffect (linguistics)PsychologyMedical educationInvertebrateEcologyMedicineBiologyGeographyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientists have used educational presentations and "bug banquets" to alter widespread negative attitudes toward invertebrates. In this article, the authors explore whether such presentations have a measurable affect on attitudes. Junior high, high school, and university students completed an attitude survey focusing on invertebrates in general and as a food source. Half of each age group then experienced an educational bug banquet presented by the authors. Several weeks later, all participants again completed the survey. Results suggest that educational bug banquets have complex and subtle effects on attitudes that may depend on age, but they may help prepare people to respond more positively in future encounters with these species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · 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