MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117295837 · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05346-6_7

Exploring the Educational Potential of Climate Change Exhibitions in Natural History Museums

2025· book-chapter· en· W7117295837 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anna Pshenichny-Mamo, Maggie Demarse, Roberta Howard Hunter, Dina Tsybulsky

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions from biology education research · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyAzrieli FoundationMichigan State University
KeywordsExhibitionNatural (archaeology)Leverage (statistics)Natural historyQualitative researchClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change (CC) is a critical socio-scientific issue that requires special attention in biology education. Natural History Museums (NHMs) offer an authentic learning environment where CC can be presented, thus providing unique opportunities for instruction. This qualitative study examined the educational potential of two CC exhibitions at NHMs. Interviews were conducted with museum staff to learn about the educational goals they associate with the exhibitions. Four key educational goals emerged from the findings: (1) Grounding knowledge in science, (2) Grounding knowledge in Nature of Science (NOS), (3) Visitors’ emotional connections to CC, and (4) Encouraging personal activism. These goals all contribute to a deeper appreciation of the scientific process. In addition to the interviews, we analyzed the content of both CC exhibitions to identify which aspects of NOS were integrated. The findings showed that the exhibitions differed in terms of the emphasis on the cognitive-epistemic vs. the institutional-social aspects of NOS. Despite these differences, both exhibitions sought to enhance visitors' understanding of the complexity of CC while promoting informed discourse, personal engagement, and activism. The discussion centers on ways biology educators can leverage NHM exhibitions to impart scientific knowledge on CC while addressing related topics in the classroom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContributions from biology education researchSame topicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationFrench-language works237,207