Scientists’ public engagement goals: Perceived importance and personal prioritization
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
= 1897) of United States- and Canada-based scientists in six scientific fields to explore correlates of perceived (a) public engagement goal importance and (b) personal goal prioritization. Building on the Integrated Behavioral Model, the results suggest that scientists' beliefs about the societal benefits of a goal (i.e. attitudes) are the most consistent predictors of goal importance ratings and personal goal prioritization. Other beliefs are also associated with personal goal prioritization, including beliefs about personal benefits, agency (i.e. self-efficacy), and to a lesser extent, social norms. The data further suggests that basic scientists have similar goals to applied scientists who were in the sample, and that there are few differences across the six fields studied. The conclusion is that proponents of specific behavioral goals may wish to focus on communicating the benefits of goals to scientists, more so than norms or efficacy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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