MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747851242 · doi:10.1080/00963402.2017.1364008

Scientific advocacy: A tool for assessing the risks of engagement

2017· article· en· W2747851242 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin A. Schmidt, Simon D. Donner

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Atomic Scientists · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsPublic engagementPublic sphereConsumer AdvocacyFunction (biology)Political scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientists active in the public sphere recognize the importance of broader communications but sometimes have an incomplete or exaggerated view of the risks to both their public and professional reputations as a function of their advocacy. These risks are connected fundamentally to the degree that the advocacy positions they take are based on values that are shared (or not) with their audiences. An encapsulation of the connections between Risks, Advocacy, and Values in Engagement (RAVE) may help inform choices that public scientists must make.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.243
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.243
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0380.017
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0170.020
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.548
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.030 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Atomic ScientistsSame topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207