Have You Seen This? Why Political Pundits Share Scholarly Research on Social Media
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
Background A healthy public sphere requires a flow of reliable, trustworthy, and accurate information. Scholarly research is one such source but, to be most effective, it must reach the public. One possible dissemination route for that material is political pundits. Analysis We extracted the tweets of thirty-two Canadian pundits with links to scholarly research and studied the main motivations for sharing a link to a scholarly article. Conclusion and implications We found that most pundits we studied tweeted at least one link to a scholarly article and that the motivations for sharing varied. However, our sample shared links to scholarly journal articles infrequently. Résumé Contexte Pour bien fonctionner, une sphère publique requiert un flux d’informations qui soient fiables, dignes de confiance et précises. La recherche savante est une source de telles informations, mais pour être efficace elle doit rejoindre le public. Une façon de disséminer la recherche consiste à recourir à des commentateurs politiques. Analyse Nous avons passé en revue les gazouillis de 32 commentateurs canadiens ayant des liens avec la recherche savante et nous avons étudié leurs motivations principales pour partager un lien vers un article savant. Conclusion et implications Nous avons découvert que la plupart des commentateurs de notre échantillon ont inclus au moins un lien vers un article savant dans leurs gazouillis et que leurs motivations pour le faire étaient diverses. Cependant, ces commentateurs ne partageaient pas souvent des liens vers des articles paraissant dansdes revues savantes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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