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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the discourse of 15- to16-year-old Swiss junior high school students in order to understand public discourse on the environment and environmental protection. Discourse analysis reveals four interpretive repertoires as the building blocks for the so-called post-ecological discourse, which can be used to describe important aspects of current ways of talking about ecological issues in Europe. We show that 10 theoretically identifiable dimensions of this discourse can be understood in terms of a mutual interplay between the four interpretive repertoires. Post-ecological discourse in today's (Swiss) society appears to be at its core a loss-of-control-discourse, which leads (in our students) to a latent eco-depression. Thus, the public understanding of science can be affected by unintended consequences of the talk itself (in this case an unintended environmental depression), that is, by the inherent characteristics of the involved repertoires, here especially the so-called folk science repertoire. Fostering public understanding of science is thus not merely a question of providing the public with scientific 'facts'. It is also an issue of paying attention to the available discursive repertoires. If necessary, viable alternative repertoires may have to be offered. In school, for example, conversations about the nature of science, and about complexity and applied ethics might help students learn new interpretive repertoires and how to mobilize these in talking about the environment and environmental protection.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it