Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a qualitative research, deals with studying which communication strategy is used by politicians, whether explorational, exploitative, or ambidextrous communication and how citizens, instead, view such strategy choices carried out by politicians. Moreover, the study analyzes whether ambidextrous communication strategies allow citizens to achieve greater knowledge and awareness regarding sustainability issues (SDGs), compared to what occurs if the politician uses a different communication strategy.The Study 1 was conducted through a semi-structured interview to Italian parliamentarians (senators and deputies) of the XVII and XVIII legislatures. The number of parliamentarians who agreed to the interview was 24 parliamentarians.In the study 2 a survey was conducted on a sample of Italian citizens through various communication channels, mainly through Whastapp and Facebook. The final aim of survey to identify whether the joint use of both communication channels may reinforce citizens’ awareness about sustainable development goals. The citizens what responded to the survey were 289.The results of the two studies show that the use of ambidextrous communication strategy, ie the joint use of the exploitative and explorational communications, is preferred by politicians to the use of only one of the strategies and that there is a positive correlation between the ambidextrous communication strategy of politicians and greater awareness of citizens about sustainability issues (SDGs). These results demonstrate that the hypotheses identified are supported.Although this study has significant implications for how politicians should communicate, it also has different limits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".