Catalyzing Conversations: Critical Thinking Skills to Win the Battle for Truth in the Post-Truth Era
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
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is uniquely poised to address one of the greatest challenges in the “post-truth” era through catalyzing conversations that promote the effective development of critical thinking skills necessary for identifying and avoiding conspiracy theories. An interdisciplinary team of scientists, science communicators, public health nurses and educators has designed case studies, modules and activities that are curriculum-based for use in kindergarten to grade 12 classes to promote vaccine safety. Two serendipitous outcomes from this Building Resistance to Vaccine Misinformation program included: i) significant learning experiences for everyone in our team about the other disciplines, and ii) that the research assistants articulated their own emerging professional identities. Once this program receives ethics approval, we will work with education programs to beta-test the case studies, modules and activities then assess the impacts of this program through pre and post experience questionnaires and journaling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it