ComSciConCAN and the Positive Impacts on STEM Graduate Students’ Confidence and Sense of Belonging
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: Although Science Communication (SciComm) is a growing field, there currently exist a large number of undergraduate- and graduate- level SciComm training programs worldwide. Two noted benefits of such programs are improvement in SciComm confidence and sense of belonging. ComSciConCAN is a graduate level SciComm conference; no studies have previously looked into the impacts of this conference, which encouraged us to initiate this study. 
 Purpose: To explore the impacts of ComSciConCAN on the participants’ confidence in communicating with other scientists and the general public, and their sense of belonging in their current STEM programs and SciComm activities 
 Methods: ComSciConCAN-2021 participants were asked to complete pre- and post- workshop surveys. Data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel, and unpaired t-test statistical analysis was conducted (when applicable) using Graphpad.
 Results: With regards to confidence, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the mean levels reported for all three cases pre- versus post- conference. Regarding sense of belonging, 65% and 83% of the participants reported at least “somewhat agreeing” that the workshops will help improve this in their current STEM program and SciComm activities, respectively. 
 Conclusion: The conference did have a positive impact on the participants’ SciComm confidence and senses of belonging.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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