Research dissemination in digital media: An online survey of French researchers’ practices
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
Researchers are currently encouraged to make their results more accessible and transparent for their peers and to engage wider, lay audiences in science through new digital media. The Campus Iberus digital science action group carried out a first study to investigate how Spanish scientists communicate their work through digital media (Perez-Llantada et al. 2022). As international partners of this action group, members of the GERAS working group Literacies in Academia, Science and the Professions have replicated the online survey across several Higher Education Institutions in France. Here, we report on the results of the survey concerning both STEMM and HSS researchers. The aim is to identify the types of online science communication used by researchers in the French context, especially those targeting wider, non-specialist audiences. The survey results point to disciplinary and gender differences and allow us to analyze the needs of these researchers in terms of developing the necessary language, communication and digital skills to communicate effectively in this context.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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