Environmental Communication and Science Communication—Conversations, Connections and Collaborations
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
This commentary considers the separate but interconnected evolution of science \ncommunication and environmental communication as fields of research and practice, and \nargues for better mutual understanding between the fields, including an understanding of \nnecessary differences. It notes that the repertoires of science communication and \nenvironmental communication overlap but have different emphases. Environmental \ncommunication emphasises public allegiances with a view to persuasion; science \ncommunication has focussed on public understanding and appreciation of science. The \npotential and the need for closer cooperation are growing as the authority of science is \nchallenged in political arenas. Both fields recognise the important contributions of science to \npublic sense-making and informed decision-making on major issues. Increasing engagement \nwith the science that underpins environmental issues could benefit environmental \ncommunicators. In political contexts, science communication could learn from environmental \ncommunication’s greater attention to advocacy and symbolic representations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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