‘If they only knew what I know’: Attitude change from education about ‘fracking’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple explanation for why another’s perspectives on unconventional gas development via hydraulic fracturing differ from one’s own is that people are uninformed. Such an answer employs the deficit model of communication and understanding—shown for a quarter century to be inadequate for explaining public perceptions and behaviors. A more likely explanation, but far more challenging for an easy “fix”, is that values fundamentally shape views. In autumn 2014, I taught an undergraduate course entirely on unconventional gas development (UGD) via hydraulic fracturing (often called “fracking”). I evaluated the effects of intensive education on attitudes about UGD by presenting my students with the same survey on the first and penultimate days of class. Overall attitudes changed little, despite substantial increases in self-reported knowledge and changes in beliefs about impacts associated with UGD. This poses a challenge for energy policies and regulation built off the assumption that additional education can readily change attitudes. I consider ways of approaching policy that respond to education’s limited effects on attitudes about UGD.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".