Recent Books in Science Communication: Practice, Ethics, and a Perspective on New Spaces in Digital Videos
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
In the age of social media, personalized information, and digital experiments, science journalism sits upon a new frontier. Some see it in danger, with Dunwoody (2014, p. 43) writing: “science journalism is an increasingly imperiled occupation that, perversely, is needed now more than ever. In a world where both citizens and advertisers increasingly control their delivery of information via online channels, the kind of legacy mass media that have long served as the principal employers of science journalists—newspapers and magazines—are faltering in many countries. Journalists cut loose from these media organizations are scrambling to find their footing elsewhere.” Others see trailblazers standing up to a new age, with Hayden and Check Hayden (2018, p. 1) suggesting that, with a “broader media ecosystem awash with low-quality, sensationalized, sometimes intentionally misleading material, science and environmental journalists and their allies have stood up to assert the value of rigorous, factual, independent coverage and scrutiny.”
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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