The development of an instrument to assess science students' views on the social responsibility of scientists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the development of an instrument which was used to gather information on the views of science students on the social responsibility of scientists. The methodology is based on a “Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS)” instrument which was developed in Canada. It involves three phases, employing interviews and free response and fixed response questionnaires, respectively. Qualitative data analysis at each stage of the development of the instrument provided the input for the following stage. Participants were drawn over a two year period mainly from chemistry students at various levels of academic study at the University of South Africa. Procedures are described separately for each of the three phases in the development of the instrument and are elucidated by actual findings abstracted during the development process. The final questionnaire statements cover topics in the fields of education, science, technology and society, the scientist as individual and the scientific enterprise. They include statements on scientific freedom, the technological imperative, science in Africa, women in science, whistleblowing, education of the public and the role of science students in society.
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 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 | 0.084 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".