Entry and Emergent Agendas of Adults Visiting an Aquarium in Family Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding visitors' agendas is important in providing insights about learning experiences in informal settings, particularly if we consider learning to be both a product (what they learn) and a process (how they learn it). Accordingly, a handful of studies have investigated the impact of visitors' agendas on learning. However, little attention has been directed to investigating the impact of individual and collective agendas on the nature of the visit experience for the adult members of family groups, or the dynamics and evolution of these agendas during and after a visit to an informal setting. This article examines the roles that personal agendas play in shaping and framing the aquarium experiences of the adult members of 13 family groups visiting the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre in Canada. It explores the dynamic and changing character of entry and emergent agendas within the family group context and the factors that constitute and shape such agendas. The roles of these agendas in the overall on-site learning experience of the adult members of the participating family groups, and the longitudinal impact of the aquarium visit are further discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".