Case Study of Rip Current Knowledge amongst Students Participating in a Study Abroad Program
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
Students studying abroad or participating in a foreign exchange often visit a beach during their time abroad, but little is known about their understanding of rip currents and other surf hazards, their behavior, their choices, or if they take precautions when visiting a beach. This study describes the results of a survey of Texas A&M University students who completed a study abroad program between May 2013 and May 2015. Results of the survey suggest that a majority of the students surveyed (~74%) visited at least one beach during their time abroad, and over 50% of students visited more than 2 beaches. The visit to the beach was optional for most of the respondents and most went as part of a group. Decisions about the beaches visited tended to be based on convenience and recommendations from other students, tourists, or locals, and were rarely based on safety. Results of this preliminary study point to a need for implementing proactive beach safety education programs for students studying abroad.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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