MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902632797 · doi:10.1177/1075547018816456

Science Communication Is Culture: Foregrounding Ritual in the Public Communication of Science

2018· article· en· W2902632797 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForegroundingScience communicationDialogicSociologyField (mathematics)Relevance (law)Communication studiesCommunication sciencesEpistemologyHumanismPublic awareness of scienceModels of communicationSocial scienceMedia studiesCommunicationPolitical scienceScience educationPedagogyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary demonstrates the relevance of James Carey’s ritual view of communication for the field of science communication. A ritual view of communication invites examination of the geographical, historical, and material dimensions of communication where dialogues, bodies, public spaces, and comestibles provide enabling conditions for democratic engagement. This is an opportune time for science communications scholars to engage with Carey’s ideas as the field moves from deficit accounts of communication to the dialogic and cultural models that have become more prevalent in recent decades. A ritual view highlights the importance of theoretical, humanist approaches as complements to empirical, instrumental accounts of science communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.016
Science and technology studies0.0130.064
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0160.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.480
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.028 · 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