Comparing the effectiveness of flagship species in zoo interpretation videos involving dialogic‐based narrative approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoological institutions frequently engage in indirect conservation activities as global conservation targets suggest a need for raising public awareness and engagement in biodiversity conservation. However, research suggests that while members of the public are typically aware of general conservation issues, they are often uncertain of simple and practical actions they take that will be impactful. In light of current conservation goals and targets, and the need for social science research to address the environmental learning and behavior change gap, this study builds upon prior action-based environmental education research and tests the efficacy of ex situ environmental education in supporting in situ conservation. Zoos typically employ flagship species to center their conservation messaging due to the purported draw of charismatic species. Using outreach videos with a dialogic-based narrative approach, we evaluated the efficacy of different flagships for conservation, comparing both species-focused versus generic conservation messaging and charismatic versus less charismatic species ambassadors. We found that zoo conservation outreach videos using dialogic-based narrative approaches were equally impactful regardless of the level of focus (i.e., species vs. broader biodiversity) or charisma level of the focal taxa.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".