MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048214453 · doi:10.1177/0963662520946667

Effects of gender harassment on science popularization behaviors

2020· article· en· W3048214453 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Understanding of Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicScience Education and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHarassmentLegitimacyScience communicationClothingPublic relationsPublic engagementSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyScience educationPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this pilot study, we used a mixed methods online survey to ask science popularizers how gender harassment influences the way they communicate science to the public. Popularizers reported that gender harassment caused the science popularization field to increasingly strive for gender inclusivity in the creation of content. However, harassment made female popularizers feel they must emphasize their legitimacy, quite conscious of their clothing choices, and wary of engaging the public through mediums or topics that provoke more severe harassment. Implications for science communication and public engagement are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it