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.
affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
VenueNature Human Behaviour · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipResearch Institute of Science and Technology for SocietyCentre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of CambridgeEconomic and Social Research CouncilKementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan TeknologiCentre for Marine SocioecologyNational Science and Technology CouncilFundación Española para la Ciencia y la TecnologíaGenome AlbertaNOMIS StiftungNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsUniversität ZürichUniwersytet ŁódzkiGovernment of AlbertaFédération Wallonie-BruxellesUniversitetet i BergenUniversität zu LübeckUniverzita Karlova v PrazeConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentUniversität WienEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichUniwersytet WarszawskiAston UniversityAarhus Universitets ForskningsfondLembaga Pengelola Dana PendidikanAustrian Science FundJohn Templeton FoundationBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungEuropean CommissionLeverhulme TrustFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of TasmaniaAgentúra na Podporu Výskumu a VývojaBundesamt für EnergieUniversity of WarwickNational Science FoundationUK Research and InnovationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungGovernment of the United KingdomCity University of Hong KongVictoria UniversityResnick Sustainability Institute for Science, Energy and Sustainability, California Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyTurun YliopistoVictoria University of WellingtonAarhus UniversitetUniversität HamburgCalifornia Institute of TechnologyHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeResearch Councils UKGenome CanadaHarvard UniversityCarleton CollegeVetenskapsrådetTrinity Western UniversityAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversité Catholique de LouvainFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaUniwersytet Śląski w KatowicachBill and Melinda Gates FoundationHarvey Mudd College
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceAffect (linguistics)Biology and political orientationPublic trustPublic relationsPublic opinionPsychologyLaw
Abstract
fetched live from OpenAlexScience is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in scientists can help decision makers act on the basis of the best available evidence, especially during crises. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. We interrogated these concerns with a preregistered 68-country survey of 71,922 respondents and found that in most countries, most people trust scientists and agree that scientists should engage more in society and policymaking. We found variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual- and country-level variables, including political orientation. While there is no widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists.
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.906
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
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.
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
