MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094609647 · doi:10.1351/pac200880010161

Chemists and "the public": IUPAC's role in achieving mutual understanding (IUPAC Technical Report)

2008· article· en· W2094609647 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Mahaffy, Anthony Ashmore, Bob Bucat, Choon Do, Megan Rosborough

Bibliographic record

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsThe King's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical nomenclatureChemistryTerminologyEngineering ethicsWork (physics)Organic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This report informs IUPAC's efforts to enhance the public understanding of and appreciation for chemistry by evaluating IUPAC's mandate, strengths, and weaknesses, and providing insights from a substantial review of the relevant science communication literature. It summarizes the recommendations of an IUPAC project whose overall goal is to provide a framework that will bring the same level of intellectual rigor to IUPAC's science communication activities as to its scientific activities. This implies that careful attention must be paid to the terminology used to describe these activities, to clear articulation of goals and motives for public understanding of chemistry initiatives, and to inclusion of rigorous evaluations of outcomes from the outset in the design of projects on the public understanding of chemistry. Informed by our analysis of best practices for science communication, this report provides the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. IUPAC has an important role to play in enhancing public understanding of chemistry. 2. Public understanding of chemistry activities aimed at supporting teachers and students within the formal school system are more effective than those aimed at the general public. 3. IUPAC's primary targeted public should be IUPAC chemists and educators, and IUPAC's most important role is to help them understand and work with a variety of other publics. 4. It is proposed that IUPAC's niche be to focus on activities that indirectly enhance public understanding, such as: (a) Helping scientists identify and understand their publics. (b) Influencing international organizations. (c) Supporting science education systems, particularly in countries in transition. (d) Supporting scientists and educators by communicating relevant findings from IUPAC projects, conferences, and activities at an appropriate level. (e) Supporting national chemical societies and other organizations. 5. Recommendations are presented for steps to be undertaken by IUPAC to implement these recommendations and to develop a clearer strategy for public understanding of chemistry initiatives and activities.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure and Applied ChemistrySame topicChemistry and Chemical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207