MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056839815 · doi:10.1177/0963662507075649

School science and its controversies; or, whatever happened to scientific literacy?

2007· article· en· W2056839815 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

VenuePublic Understanding of Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScientific literacyPublic awareness of sciencePromotion (chess)Science educationScience, technology, society and environment educationScience communicationSocial science educationSociologyLiteracyPolitical sciencePublic relationsField (mathematics)PedagogySocial scienceEngineering ethicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1980s saw the rise of the public understanding of science, as a movement and as a research field. The decade also saw the goal of K-12 science instruction reoriented toward the promotion of scientific literacy for all students. This paper explores the subsequent relationship of these two movements. It examines debates over K-12 science curricular reform, with particular focus on “civic scientific literacy,” the introduction of science, technology, and society (STS) issues into classrooms, and the gradual retreat from STS-oriented reforms. It discusses how those debates may have been influenced by findings from the public understanding of science, and argues that educational debates themselves provide an important resource for probing larger issues of public understanding.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.013
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.238 · 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