The pesky problem of defining a ‘pest’: testing the pest management attitudes scale in the United Kingdom
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 Pest Management Attitudes (PMA) scale was developed to provide a unidimensional and versatile tool to assess attitudes toward introduced pests and their management. While the PMA has been tested and shown strong psychometric properties in samples from Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ), it is only beginning to be used internationally. This study tested the utility and influence of wording of the PMA scale in the United Kingdom (UK), using a 2021 survey (N = 999) distributed via online platform Prolific. Two of the 9 PMA scale items were not appropriate in our UK sample. We posit that despite references to introduced and native species in the PMA wording, many participants completed the survey with human rather than biodiversity pests in mind. While the PMA remains a valuable tool for understanding attitudes toward pests and their management, wording may need modification to ensure that concepts translate cross-culturally to retain meaningful comparisons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it