The influence of science clubs in low-income communities on children’s relationships toward school science?
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
Informal science education has great potential to support equitable and ongoing engagement of a diverse range of participants with science. This study focuses on children from low-income neighborhoods in an East-Central province of Canada, who participated in an informal science education opportunity: a science club program. Using theory related to factors influencing a child’s science identity we examined the ways in which children compared science as experienced in club and school settings. Based on a qualitative methodology and case study research strategy, we conducted 14 focus group sessions with 45 children enrolled in the clubs. Our focus group questions did not ask children to compare club and school science but these comparisons emerged in the children’s conversations. Children made strong contrasts between their perceptions of the fun and exciting science of science clubs and the boring lack of learning that occurs in school science. We problematize the positioning of these two science educational contexts as being in opposition to one another and encourage science club providers to consider ways of harnessing the combined force of complementary formal and informal science provision.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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