Television as a Tool of Environmental Adult Education: Limits and Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
special interest in the use of media in education. Television has been a conveyer of environmental information particu-larly since the 1960's. However, critics have accused the mass media of supporting the status quo "because of market forces, journal-istic standards, and work require-ments " and even of being "a tool of suppression used by the ruling class. (Neuzil & Kovarik, 1997, p. xiii) To date, the potential of television as a tool of environmental adult education has been given limited attention. This paper addresses the present state of environmental programming in Europe, Canada and the United States. It begins with a brief review of the literature on television and delivery of environmental In a sample of residents of Ithaca, New York, television was second only to newspapers as a source of environmental information, and ranked information and then critically examines three sample programs as a way to explore the educational potential of this medium. In general, American programming tends to be emotionalized and less cognitively focused than Canadian and European programs. There is a variable lack of critical analysis and placement of environmental issues within the larger socio-political contexts. To improve the effectiveness of television programs within an adult education framework, efforts should be made to increase dialogue and interaction with viewers. Possible adjunct methods would include interactive programs, Web sites and/or the possibility to develop discussion groups. Television as a Conveyer of Environmental Issues Since the 1960s, there has been a general increase in environmental p rogramming on television. Although this trend seems to wax and wane with the prominence of environmental issues, the public often uses mass media as a source of information on environmental issues (Hansen, 1993, p. 3). Ostman and Parker (1987) found that in a sample of residents of Ithaca, New York, television was second only to newspapers as a source of environmental information, and ranked above magazines and radio. In addition, those with less formal education were the most likely to use television.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".