Science communication: understanding its challenges and opportunities – review of three books
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a world overflowing with information, much of which is freely accessible through a multitude of channels, who needs books about the communication of information, especially a large handbook?Would we not be better off with less information rather than dealing with a continuing flow of books and avalanche of information that confronts us everyday?If we stop for a moment for a reality check, however, a different view comes to mind.This can account for the recent spate of books on the subject.The COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and other challenges facing society are amply demonstrating, now more than ever, that an understanding is needed of how information is communicated and used, particularly scientific information.Politicians, health advisors and practitioners, public sector managers, business leaders, and every citizen need access to credible, relevant, and legitimate scientific information to inform critical public and personal decisions.Our lives today and the future of society hinge on well-informed decisions.Since at least the mid-seventeenth century, with the launch of scientific journals in London and Paris, scientists (even before this
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".