Warning response on a university campus: Anticipating message confirmation behavior among undergraduate students
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
An exploratory study was conducted at the University of Alberta to examine how undergraduate students might respond to an emergency alert on campus. Findings from the study were derived from an innovative methodology that used text messaging to prompt in situ observations on campus and to inform subsequent focus group discussions about students’ warning response decision making. Additional observations were also made based on a sample of messages posted on the social media platform Twitter following an actual campus alert issued in April 2010. Findings suggest that informal communication channels play a key role in shaping response decision making among students outside of classroom settings. In classroom and laboratory settings, however, faculty and teaching assistants may play a critical role in supporting confirmation of messages and influencing students’ response decisions. Recommendations for emergency planners are discussed, including the use of social media in support of official warnings and the development of “just-in-time” electronic resources for campus faculty and teaching staff.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it