Children’s perspective-taking and decision-making on forests and land use
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
Students' reasoning and decision making on complex socioscientific issues are critical for developing scientific literacy for 21st century citizenship. By incorporating a scenario-based approach, this study aims to understand the complexity of students' decision making on environmental issues: forests and land use. To help students grasp the context of these issues, we developed scenarios reflecting their experiences and understanding of forests within local communities. Through scenario-based surveys, students in Grade 5-6 science classrooms were encouraged to explore diverse stakeholders' perspectives and articulate their decisions regarding the scenarios. Additionally, students in focus groups participated in semi-structured discussions and interviews. The data collected from the surveys and students' dialogues were thematically analyzed. The study found that students prioritized environmental concerns, demonstrated skepticism toward politicians' perspectives, and emphasized righteousness in their decision making. These findings suggest that a holistic approach is essential to engage students' diverse perspectives in socioscientific and environmental problem solving. However, this also highlights the ongoing challenge of disciplinary boundaries within school curricula and pedagogical practices in science classrooms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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