The contribution of science‐rich resources to public science interest
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
Abstract This preliminary study examined the effect that five major sources of public science education—schools, science centers, broadcast media, print media, and the Internet—had on adults' science interest values and cognitive predispositions . Over 3,000 adults were sampled in three U.S. metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, California, Phoenix, Arizona, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. To minimize potential sampling bias, the results were weighted by current U.S. Census data to be comparable to demographics from each of the three jurisdictions. Participants were asked to self‐report their current and early adolescent usage of these five science‐related resources, the quality of their experiences with each, and their current abilities, values, and cognitive predispositions relative to science. Data showed that overall, a broad cross‐section of adults living in these cities engaged in a wide array of science‐related activities and that large majorities did so frequently. Nearly two‐thirds of all respondents self‐reported currently participating in some kind of science‐related activity every week and nearly half doing so daily. Results suggested that having frequent; positive science‐related experiences in‐ and out‐of‐school, both early and later in life, correlated with having a strong interest in and positive perception of science as an adult. Although a diversity of positive science‐related experiences correlated with current adult science interest values and cognitive predispositions, only five factors uniquely and significantly predicted adult science interest, values, and cognitive predispositions in the multivariate models: (a) early adolescent experiences visiting a science center, (b) early adolescent experiences watching science‐related television, (c) adult visits to a science center, (d) adults reading books and magazines about science, and (e) adults using the internet to learn more about science. Discussed are issues of self‐selection, quality of experiences, and the complex and synergistic nature of the science learning ecosystem.
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 | 0.185 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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