Advancing Public Ocean Perceptions Research: a guiding approach to strengthen collaboration for ocean health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) emphasizes advancing our understanding of the ocean and promoting sustainable practices to ensure ocean health and interconnected well-being. As we approach the halfway mark, achieving this agenda requires informed and actionable collaboration among professionals involved in ocean science, management, conservation, industry, communication and education, as well as interested and/or affected groups, guided by science–policy– society linkages. Prioritizing the role of society can help to motivate and enable the restoration of people–ocean relationships. Understanding public ocean perceptions is crucial for grounding such efforts in place-based relevance. This paper discusses the role of Public Ocean Perceptions Research (POPR), a form of ocean literacy research, in this context. We analyse five pan-Canadian POPR surveys, each with specific ocean-focused objectives, to highlight their potential to contribute to ocean–human health. The surveys consistently reflect some themes (e.g., attitudes and behaviours), while lacking others (e.g., ocean solutions). Particular attention on where a marine social science lens is, or may be reflected, can help to inform the design and analysis of future POPR studies to better understand how people understand, value, and care for the ocean. We position how arising themes and ocean literacy dimensions can be used in ongoing research efforts, to inform marine conservation and broader ocean science policy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".