Mind the gap: questioning the existence of a ‘knowledge deficit’ in conservation social media message evaluation by scientist, science-trained, and general public audience groups
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
Conservation communication tends to assume a knowledge gap between scientists and target audiences and focuses more on education rather than invitational forms of communication. Known as the knowledge deficit approach to science communication, this approach assumes a significant gap between the public and science-trained professionals and hopes to overcome that gap through communicating ‘better’ facts. Through the use of focus group data, this study examines whether a knowledge deficit exists between scientist, science-trained, and general public audience groups’ understanding of conservation concepts and evaluation and interpretation of conservation social media messages. We show that a significant knowledge deficit does not exist between these groups, and furthermore show between group overlap on key themes surrounding the presentation of social media messages. Altogether this suggests that adopting other styles of communication may enhance engagement with conservation issues.
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 | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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