Communicating environmental geoscience – An international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
challenges in the area of communication not identified by these previous studies. Previous workEarly surveys examining communication and scientists were specific to the USA (Harz and Chappell, 1998) and United Kingdom (Royal Society, 2006); and were generalized to include all scientists.Peters et al. (2008) surveyed stem cell researchers and epidemiologists in five leading research countries on media relationships.The study of Harz and Chappell (1998) focused on the relationship between science and the media, and surveyed both scientists and journalists.Their wide-ranging report emphasized the serious gulf between media and science, and identified this as a critical problem for the future as in an increasingly technological society, the media form the most important means of informing the public about science.Together with numerous recommendations they suggest that -Scientists and journalists should begin a dialogue to educate each other about the ways in which their needs and the needs of the public can be met.-The scientific community should train communicators to speak for different scientific disciplines.-Publishers of scientific papers should require authors to include summaries of their findings-written in plain language-that put the work in perspective and explain its relevance and importance.The Royal Society study was designed to examine the attitudes and activities of scientists and engineers towards engaging and communicating with the public.This involved a survey of nearly 1500 scientists.The authors noted an increase in public engagement over the six year period since a previous similar survey but were concerned that "that many scientists see the main reason for engaging with the public as the need to 'educate' them rather than to debate, listen and learn as part of a genuine dialogue."A number of recommendations were made including: -More young scientists should be encouraged to be involved in public engagement activities.-Institutions and funding bodies need to provide better support for scientists undertaking public engagement.-There should be greater rewards and recognition for public engagement work.-There should be better coordination between organizations working on public engagement.Communication is a major barrier in using the results of environmental geoscience to inform public debate and policy.The results of an international survey of environmental geoscientists on communication issues are discussed.The results suggest that environmental geoscientists recognize that communicating with media and public is important.They believe that their research is not too complex or difficult for the public to understand, and they generally feel well equipped to engage the public.Few of them, however, are trained in this area, and most are interested in taking courses to improve their skills.Their research is important in developing policy but often they find it challenging to communicate with policy makers and politicians.Thus their research is not always used effectively in developing policy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".