MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W654789236

The Effectiveness of environmental communication with scuba divers : a case study comparing the curricula of BSAC, PADI, and SSI entry-level certification courses

2011· book· en· W654789236 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2011
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Society for Antimicrobial ChemotherapyMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsCertificationCurriculumMedical educationEngineeringBusinessPsychologyPedagogyMedicineManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the
\nenvironmental communications contained in novice certification course manuals. This
\nwas accomplished by reviewing the effectiveness of these communications across three
\ncertifying bodies, the British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC), the Professional Association of
\nDiving Professionals (PADI) and Scuba Schools International (SS I), using the
\nframework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasive Communication (Petty,
\nMcMichael & Brannon, 1 992), and its associated message delivery styles, as a
\nframework for evaluation.The messages conveyed to scuba divers through each agency' s novice
\ncertification course manual were analyzed using software-assisted content analysis. The
\ncontent analysis examined the manifest and latent content to determine the overt and
\ncovert messages inherent within the texts. This was accomplished using a mixture of
\ninductive emergent category development and deductive category application. Images
\nwere also coded to indicate whether they supported or contradicted the environmental
\nmessages espoused in the manual. All written messages were assigned codes that
\nindicated the message delivery style, and route to persuasion, used. Once each certifying
\nbodies' textbook had been systematically coded, and categories I themes had been identified, a comparison of the environmental messages communicated across certifying
\nbodies was undertaken to determine the manuals' relative efficacies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it