Outreach channels for polar science: an expedition to Kerguelen Islands as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polar science outreach is strongly needed, because besides promoting the utility of polar studies for society as a whole, it can generate public demand for new projects and expeditions. The dissemination of polar discoveries should be reinforced in countries without polar territories and for which polar science might not be a priority. In this pilot study ( N =182 participants) we have contrasted the opinions of polar scientists (French, Belgian, British, Canadian, Australian, German, Italian and Spanish researchers) with those of a potentially interested public (graduate students of pedagogy and biology), in order to assess if the communication channels employed by polar researchers to make their results public align with those used by non-polar experts for learning about polar discoveries. The results revealed that scientific publications and presentations were considered a priority by the researchers, and these scientific communication channels were preferentially employed. Only a minority of researchers thought that non-scientific publications might be a good communication resource. In contrast, both groups of students, which considered polar research important but not a top priority, employed the Internet as their main channel for information about polar discoveries. Students assessed the use of polar discoveries as positive for educational purposes at both Primary and Secondary levels. The information presently received by students was perceived as being too generalist and the main suggestions to improve outreach in this field, in addition to the use of Internet, were more rapid dissemination of new discoveries. Citation: Dopico E, Garcia-Vazquez E. Outreach channels for polar science: an expedition to Kerguelen Islands as a case study. Adv Polar Sci, 2016, 27: 31-38, doi: 10.13679/j.advps.2016.1.00031
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".