Entry and Emergent Agendas of Adults Visiting an Aquarium in Family Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".