Visitor perceptions and reliance on active and passive communication techniques in zoos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of educating the public about environmental and conservation issues is found in the mission statements of almost every zoo in the world. In order to effectively teach their visitors, zoos must understand how they are communicating with their public. In this study, we attempt to quantify how Sylvan Heights Bird Park (SHBP) communicates with its visitors. SHBP is a small not-for-profit facility that specializes in birds, with a primary focus on waterfowl (Anseriformes). Located in an economically depressed eastern North Carolina county (Halifax), SHBP receives over 46,000 visitors a year. Using a survey, we collected information of visitor perceptions of the role of zoos, their reliance on different sources of information, and their retention of information provided via different modes of communication. SHBP visitors listed exhibit signage (passive communication) as the preferred method of gaining information. Interestingly, however, we found that reliance on signage varied with age and gender and we found no difference in information retention between visitors that experienced only passive communication (signage) versus those that experienced active communication. Just over half (51%) of visitors viewed the primary purpose of a zoo to be entertainment but this view changed with age and gender. Although almost all respondents identified the role of zoos in maintaining biodiversity, we found a disconnect between this view and an understanding of how zoos might contribute to species conservation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".