Social Identity and Nature of Science Knowledge at the Undergraduate Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science literacy is essential for informed participation in modern society, and undergraduate education plays a critical role in fostering science literacy among science and non-science students. One important component of science literacy is understanding the nature of science (NOS), yet traditional NOS frameworks have been critiqued for oversimplifying scientific practice and neglecting its social and cultural dimensions. While social identity is known to influence student academic engagement and performance, little is known about how identity factors such as gender, age, program and level of study, being a visible minority, or parental education influences NOS beliefs. In this study, 272 undergraduate students from a Canadian liberal arts university completed an online questionnaire assessing NOS knowledge. Students generally demonstrated a solid understanding of NOS, though their comprehension of scientific methods is limited. No significant differences in NOS beliefs were found across social identity groups, but non-science majors were more likely to report uncertainty in their responses compared to science majors. These findings suggest that traditional NOS measures may fail to capture the nuanced ways that social identity shapes science understanding, emphasizing the need for justice-oriented approaches to NOS education.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".