Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Modeling Public Perceptions of Science in Media

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that public perception of science news can be measured on twelve dimensions, and that these measured perceptions predict engagement with science on Reddit — even when the same underlying research is framed differently.

desk verdict Solid dataset and framework, but the causal engagement claim leans on a perception model that is weakly validated for Reddit and never validated within the same-URL comparisons. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16622 v2 pith:Q4DUDGSP submitted 2025-06-19 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC

Jiaxin Pei , Dustin Wright , Isabelle Augenstein , David Jurgens This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC
keywords sciencecommunicationpublicperceptionnewsvaluespredictionRedditengagementnaturalexperimentframingcomputationalsocial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that how the public perceives a piece of science news can be measured along twelve dimensions, and that those measured perceptions predict how much people will engage with the science online. To support this, the authors build a dataset of over ten thousand ratings of fifteen hundred science news stories, train a language model to estimate the twelve perception scores from text, and then apply the model to roughly ninety-five thousand Reddit posts about science. They find that posts estimated higher on importance, surprisingness, and fun receive more upvotes and comments, while posts requiring specialized knowledge receive less engagement. The pattern holds even when the same underlying research is described in different framings, which the authors read as evidence that perception drives engagement rather than merely reflecting it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a twelve-dimension perception framework paired with a supervised text model. Each dimension is defined by one or more Likert-scaled statements; human raters from representative US and UK samples scored the statements, and a fine-tuned RoBERTa-Large multi-task regression model was trained to reproduce the average scores from a news article's title and body. The same model is then applied to Reddit posts, and engagement regressions control for the shared URL, subreddit, domain, and first-sharing status, with a stepwise variance-inflation-factor procedure to handle correlated perception dimensions. The natural experiment component uses the fact that the same underlying science is often posted in multiple framings, allowing the authors to compare perception and engagement while holding the science itself fixed.

What would settle it

Collect human perception ratings on a random sample of several hundred Reddit science posts and compare them with the model's predictions; if correlations for importance, surprisingness, or fun are near zero, the engagement regressions are artifacts of domain transfer. A second check would take one well-known study, post two framings with matched content but different predicted perception scores, and measure whether the higher-scoring framing reliably wins on upvotes and comments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that public perception of science information is both measurable and predictive: a twelve-dimension framework (newsworthiness, understandability, expertise, importance, fun, surprisingness, controversy, exaggeration, interestingness, benefit, sharing willingness, reading willingness) can be scored by human raters, approximated by a text model, and used to forecast public engagement. The key empirical result is that estimated perception scores correlate with Reddit engagement across a large corpus, and that this correlation survives a natural experiment comparing different posts about the same science. The authors conclude that more positive perceptions cause more engagement, not merely that popular topics are perceived positively.

Load-bearing premise

The perception model trained on news articles generalizes to Reddit posts, so that the predicted scores used in the engagement regressions approximate the scores human raters would give those posts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Science communicators could estimate a draft's likely reception before publishing, flagging posts that read as overly specialized or low in perceived importance.
  • Framing changes engagement: a communicator can raise expected upvotes and comments by making importance, surprisingness, or fun salient without altering the underlying finding.
  • Since content domain and outlet type shape perception more than demographics, targeting messages by scientific field may matter more than tailoring by age, gender, or education.
  • The trained perception model offers a reusable measurement instrument for studying science communication at scale across news, Reddit, and potentially other platforms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the causal reading holds, the framework could be used for A/B-style message testing at scale: render alternative framings of the same finding, estimate each framing's perception scores, and select the version predicted to engage broader audiences before any human sees it.
  • The same perception scores could be inverted as a diagnostic for science communication inequity: posts that score low on importance or high on expertise may systematically exclude readers with less science background, and the model could audit which scientific fields receive such treatment.
  • The model's weak domain transfer to Twitter suggests the relationship between perception and engagement may differ across platforms; testing whether the same engagement pattern appears on shorter-form or image-first platforms would sharpen or limit the causal claim.
  • Because engagement metrics count interaction rather than understanding, using perception-driven engagement as a success measure risks optimizing for amusing or surprising content; a fuller account would pair perception scores with comprehension or trust outcomes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a computational framework for modeling public perceptions of science news along twelve dimensions, a crowdsourced dataset of 10,489 annotations from 2,101 US and UK participants across 1,506 science news stories, and fine-tuned RoBERTa models that predict the perception scores. The authors use the estimated perceptions in two analyses: first, mixed-effect regressions of individual background and content factors on perception scores; second, regressions of Reddit engagement (post scores and comment counts) on model-predicted perception scores, including a within-URL 'natural experiment' comparing different framings of the same science news story. The central claim is that posts estimated to be more important, surprising, fun, and controversial attract more engagement, and that this reflects a direct connection between public perception and engagement.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: the annotation framework and dataset are substantial, the modeling pipeline is sensible, and the Reddit engagement analysis addresses an important question in science communication. The authors also provide a credible discussion of low inter-annotator agreement and attempt to validate their model on external domains, which is a strength. The main value would be in showing that automatically estimated perception dimensions can predict engagement beyond simple surface features. However, the central causal claim currently depends on model predictions whose validity for the specific within-URL Reddit setting is not established, so the significance is contingent on additional validation rather than being established by the present evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Figures 5–6] The natural-experiment claim that framing the same science differently changes engagement via perceived dimensions rests entirely on model-predicted perception scores for Reddit posts. The only domain-transfer validation (Appendix C, Table 3) uses n=50 posts; for CONTROVERSY, Pearson r=0.16 with a 95% confidence interval spanning zero, and the five retained dimensions have correlations of 0.62, 0.56, 0.76, 0.16, and 0.40. No validation is reported on paired posts sharing the same URL, which is the exact setting of the within-URL regressions. Because the model was trained on title+body news text, the significant CONTROVERSY coefficient in Figure 6, and the other coefficients in Figures 5–6, could reflect lexical or engagement-bait features rather than perceived public perception. The causal wording in the Introduction ('strong causal relationship') and Discussion is not supported by the current evidence; I recommend adding same-URL human-rated validation or substantially softening the causal claims.
  2. [Appendix B.3, Table 2] The average Krippendorff's α across all statements is 0.11, and the dimensions that appear in the final Reddit regressions are among the least agreed-upon (SURPRISINGNESS α=0.096, CONTROVERSY α=0.147). The argument that low-IAA data can still train reliable models relies on one prior example and does not directly establish that the aggregated mean scores for these particular dimensions are stable enough to support the reported effect sizes. Please report the reliability of the averaged scores (e.g., variance components or split-half reliability) and, if possible, rerun the engagement regressions on the human-rated 50-post Reddit subset to show that the pattern is not an artifact of low annotation reliability.
  3. [§5, Regression] The stepwise VIF-based variable removal is not described in enough detail to know which of the twelve perception dimensions were removed and whether the final five (IMPORTANCE, SURPRISINGNESS, FUN, CONTROVERSY, EXPERTISE) are robust to the ordering of removal. Since the perception dimensions are intercorrelated, stepwise selection can produce unstable coefficients and optimistic significance levels. Please report the full coefficient table before removal, the VIF values for all dimensions, and a robustness check with alternative dimension subsets or a regularized regression.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B.3] There is an unresolved placeholder '(author?)' in the sentence discussing the newsworthiness annotation task; this reference needs to be completed.
  2. [Section 2] The heading 'SURPRINGNESS' is a typo for 'SURPRISINGNESS'; please fix throughout if the misspelling appears elsewhere.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The word 'Predicing' in the caption should be 'Predicting'.
  4. [Appendix B.3] The name 'Krippendorrf' should be 'Krippendorff'.
  5. [Appendix B] The sentence 'In this section, I describe the creation process of this dataset' uses a first-person style inconsistent with the rest of the paper; please make it impersonal.
  6. [General] The paper does not state whether the dataset, trained models, or code will be publicly released; for a dataset-centered contribution, an availability statement would be valuable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Perception scores are independently annotated and applied to external Reddit outcomes; no load-bearing circular step found.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular by construction. The twelve perception dimensions are operationalized through crowd ratings (10,489 annotations from 2,101 participants), and the NLP model is trained on those ratings, not on Reddit engagement. The Reddit analyses then treat model outputs as predictors of separately measured comment counts and post scores; the regressions include the shared URL as a random effect and control subreddit, domain, and first-share status. No equation is defined in terms of the outcome, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to the authors' prior work are limited to data-processing choices (refs [51,52]) and the POTATO annotation interface (ref [53]); these are implementation details and are not the evidential basis for the perception-engagement claim. The model is also checked against a newly annotated 50-post Reddit set and an external Arxiv abstract newsworthiness dataset, so its validation is not solely the authors' own prior results. The main validity weakness is domain transfer: Appendix C reports a Reddit validation of only 50 posts, with Controversy r=0.16 whose confidence interval spans zero, and no paired same-URL validation is reported. That is a limitation of external validity, not a circularity, because the model scores are still independent of the Reddit outcome variable. The '(author?)' placeholder before reference [23] in Appendix B is a presentational artifact and does not affect the derivation chain. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, and the derivation chain is self-contained apart from ordinary methodological reuse.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that the 12 dimensions capture public perception, that averaged crowd ratings are valid despite low agreement, that the model transfers to Reddit, and that the Reddit design approximates a natural experiment. The model's internal weights are learned from data, but no hand-set free parameter is used in the headline analyses.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The twelve dimensions and their Likert statements adequately capture public perception of science news.
    The framework is assembled from news values literature, but its completeness and validity are not empirically established relative to other possible dimensions.
  • domain assumption Averaging ratings across annotators yields a valid ground truth despite low inter-annotator agreement.
    The paper argues this follows prior work, but the average Krippendorff's alpha of 0.11 indicates the averaged score is noisy.
  • domain assumption The perception model trained on news articles transfers to Reddit posts.
    Generalization is tested on only 50 Reddit posts, a small and possibly unrepresentative sample.
  • domain assumption The Prolific US and UK samples represent the respective publics.
    Balancing for age, sex, and race does not guarantee representativeness on other dimensions, and only English-speaking participants were included.
  • domain assumption A natural experiment on Reddit with URL random effects supports causal claims about framing effects.
    Controlling for the shared URL removes the underlying science topic, but other confounders such as subreddit culture, posting time, and text style are not randomized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Public Perceptions of Science in Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4DUDGSP

@misc{pith2026250616622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Public Perceptions of Science in Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4DUDGSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16622}
}
read the original abstract

Effectively engaging the public with science is vital for fostering trust and understanding in our scientific community. Yet, with an ever-growing volume of information, science communicators struggle to anticipate how audiences will perceive and interact with scientific news. In this paper, we introduce a computational framework that models public perception across twelve dimensions, such as newsworthiness, importance, and surprisingness. Using this framework, we create a large-scale science news perception dataset with 10,489 annotations from 2,101 participants from diverse US and UK populations, providing valuable insights into public responses to scientific information across domains. We further develop NLP models that predict public perception scores with a strong performance. Leveraging the dataset and model, we examine public perception of science from two perspectives: (1) Perception as an outcome: What factors affect the public perception of scientific information? (2) Perception as a predictor: Can we use the estimated perceptions to predict public engagement with science? We find that individuals' frequency of science news consumption is the driver of perception, whereas demographic factors exert minimal influence. More importantly, through a large-scale analysis and carefully designed natural experiment on Reddit, we demonstrate that the estimated public perception of scientific information has direct connections with the final engagement pattern. Posts with more positive perception scores receive significantly more comments and upvotes, which is consistent across different scientific information and for the same science, but are framed differently. Overall, this research underscores the importance of nuanced perception modeling in science communication, offering new pathways to predict public interest and engagement with scientific content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Individual’s science news consumption frequency, trust in science, and the domain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experience with science and individuals’ backgrounds could both affect people’s percep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posts with more positive perception values receive higher scores on Reddit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posts with more positive perception values receive more comments on Reddit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: When sharing the same science news story, posts that are framed to be more important, surprising, and fun receive higher scores on Reddit. Posts that require more specialized knowledge to understand receive lower scores. 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 Coeff Predicing Number of Post C…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The sciences of science communication

    Baruch Fischhoff. The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement 3):14033–14039, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues

    Randy L Bell and Norman G Lederman. Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science education, 87(3):352–377, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    The public understanding of science

    John R Durant, Geoffrey A Evans, and Geoffrey P Thomas. The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228):11–14, 1989

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public understanding of science , 23(1):4–15, 2014

    Jack Stilgoe, Simon J Lock, and James Wilsdon. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public understanding of science , 23(1):4–15, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Communicating science in social contexts

    Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi. Communicating science in social contexts. New Models, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Communicating science in social settings

    Dietram A Scheufele. Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement 3):14040–14047, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns

    Mike S Sch ¨afer, Tobias F ¨uchslin, Julia Metag, Silje Kristiansen, and Adrian Rauchfleisch. The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public understanding of science, 27(7):836–856, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes

    Patrick Sturgis and Nick Allum. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public understanding of science , 13(1):55–74, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    How journalists perceive the reading audience

    Charles K Atkin, Judee K Burgoon, and Michael Burgoon. How journalists perceive the reading audience. Newspaper research journal, 4(2):51–63, 1983

    1983

  2. [10]

    Exploring the roots of public participation in the con- troversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning

    Kirby Goidel and Matthew Nisbet. Exploring the roots of public participation in the con- troversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28:175–192, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    What’s next for science communication? promising directions and lingering distractions

    Matthew C Nisbet and Dietram A Scheufele. What’s next for science communication? promising directions and lingering distractions. American journal of botany , 96(10):1767– 1778, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991

    Molly Weinburgh. Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 32(4):387–398, 1995

    1970

  5. [13]

    A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the united states,

    Peter Achterberg, Willem De Koster, and Jeroen Van der Waal. A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the united states,

  6. [14]

    The influ- ence of political ideology on trust in science

    Aaron M McCright, Katherine Dentzman, Meghan Charters, and Thomas Dietz. The influ- ence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4):044029, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Attitudes to gene technology: the significance of trust in institutions

    Anna Olofsson, Susanna ¨Ohman, and Saman Rashid. Attitudes to gene technology: the significance of trust in institutions. European Societies, 8(4):601–624, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews

    Jing Shi, Vivianne HM Visschers, and Michael Siegrist. Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis , 35(12):2183–2201, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    emergency

    Lauren Feldman and P Sol Hart. Upping the ante? the effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in climate change news. Climatic Change, 169(1-2):10, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking

    Sara K Yeo, Michael A Xenos, Dominique Brossard, and Dietram A Scheufele. Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 658(1):172–191, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies

    P Sol Hart and Erik C Nisbet. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication research, 39(6):701–723, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Good science communication considers the audience

    Nancy Longnecker. Good science communication considers the audience. In Teaching sci- ence students to communicate: a practical guide , pages 21–30. Springer, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    What is news? news values revisited (again)

    Tony Harcup and Deirdre O’neill. What is news? news values revisited (again). Journalism studies, 18(12):1470–1488, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Franziska Badenschier and Holger Wormer. Issue selection in science journalism: Towards a special theory of news values for science news? In The sciences’ media connection–public communication and its repercussions, pages 59–85. Springer, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    From crowd ratings to predictive models of news- worthiness to support science journalism

    Sachita Nishal and Nicholas Diakopoulos. From crowd ratings to predictive models of news- worthiness to support science journalism. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2):1–28, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    When newsworthy is not noteworthy: Examining the value of news from the audience’s perspective

    Angela M Lee and Hsiang Iris Chyi. When newsworthy is not noteworthy: Examining the value of news from the audience’s perspective. Journalism studies, 15(6):807–820, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Communicating uncertainty fulfilling the duty to inform

    Baruch Fischhoff. Communicating uncertainty fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues in Science and Technology, 28(4):63–70, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Scientific outreach: toward effective public engagement with biological science

    Johanna Varner. Scientific outreach: toward effective public engagement with biological science. BioScience, 64(4):333–340, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Scientific clickbait: Examining media coverage and readability in genome-wide association research

    Jos ´e J Morosoli, Luc´ıa Colodro-Conde, Fiona Kate Barlow, and Sarah E Medland. Scientific clickbait: Examining media coverage and readability in genome-wide association research. Plos one, 19(1):e0296323, 2024. 13

    2024

  20. [28]

    Scientific jargon, good and bad

    Russel Hirst. Scientific jargon, good and bad. Journal of technical writing and communica- tion, 33(3):201–229, 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quan- tification of the use of jargon in science communication

    Aviv J Sharon and Ayelet Baram-Tsabari. Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quan- tification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science , 23(5):528–546, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Newspaper reporting of the medical literature

    Risa B Burns, Mark A Moskowitz, Michael A Osband, and Lewis E Kazis. Newspaper reporting of the medical literature. Journal of general internal medicine , 10:19–24, 1995

    1995

  23. [31]

    The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the congo, cuba and cyprus crises in four norwegian newspapers

    Johan Galtung and Mari Holmboe Ruge. The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the congo, cuba and cyprus crises in four norwegian newspapers. Journal of peace research, 2(1):64–90, 1965

    1965

  24. [32]

    Why are medical research articles tweeted? the news value perspective

    Tint Hla Hla Htoo, Na Jin-Cheon, and Michael Thelwall. Why are medical research articles tweeted? the news value perspective. Scientometrics, 128(1):207–226, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    How science makes environmental controversies worse

    Daniel Sarewitz. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental science & policy, 7(5):385–403, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science

    Sharon M Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody, and Carol L Rogers. Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science . Routledge, 1999

    1999

  27. [35]

    How a media controversy can influence a scientific publication

    Craig O Stewart. How a media controversy can influence a scientific publication. Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture (DAPSAC), 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Science and the sources of hype

    Timothy Caulfield and Celeste Condit. Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics, 15(3-4):209–217, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Understanding the problem of “hype”: Exaggeration, values, and trust in science

    Kristen Intemann. Understanding the problem of “hype”: Exaggeration, values, and trust in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3):279–294, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Trust in sci- ence, perceived media exaggeration about covid-19, and social distancing behavior.Frontiers in Public Health, 9:670485, 2021

    Ariadne Neureiter, Marlis Stubenvoll, Ruta Kaskeleviciute, and J ¨org Matthes. Trust in sci- ence, perceived media exaggeration about covid-19, and social distancing behavior.Frontiers in Public Health, 9:670485, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Public use and public funding of science

    Yian Yin, Yuxiao Dong, Kuansan Wang, Dashun Wang, and Benjamin F Jones. Public use and public funding of science. Nature human behaviour, 6(10):1344–1350, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Americans are wary of the role social media sites play in delivering the news

    Elisa Shearer and Elizabeth Grieco. Americans are wary of the role social media sites play in delivering the news. Pew Research Center, 2, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Investigating evaluation and news values in news items that are shared through social media

    Monika Bednarek. Investigating evaluation and news values in news items that are shared through social media. Corpora, 11(2):227–257, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Communicating science effec- tively: A research agenda

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Communicating science effec- tively: A research agenda. 2017. 14

    2017

  35. [43]

    deficit model

    Hee-Je Bak. Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the “deficit model” of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly , 82(4):779–795, 2001

    2001

  36. [44]

    Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications

    Jonathan Osborne, Shirley Simon, and Sue Collins. Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International journal of science education , 25(9):1049– 1079, 2003

    2003

  37. [45]

    Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists

    M Gail Jones, Ann Howe, and Melissa J Rua. Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science education , 84(2):180–192, 2000

    2000

  38. [46]

    Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? the case for ideology and religion

    Joshua M Blank and Daron Shaw. Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? the case for ideology and religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1):18–35, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Predicting news coverage of scientific articles

    Ansel MacLaughlin, John Wihbey, and David Smith. Predicting news coverage of scientific articles. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume 12, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse

    Zhongdang Pan and Gerald M Kosicki. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political communication, 10(1):55–75, 1993

    1993

  41. [49]

    Framing as a theory of media effects

    Dietram A Scheufele. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication , 49(1):103–122, 1999

    1999

  42. [50]

    The power of the press: The effects of press frames in political campaign news on media perceptions

    Paul D’Angelo and Matthew Lombard. The power of the press: The effects of press frames in political campaign news on media perceptions. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 16(1):1– 32, 2008

    2008

  43. [51]

    Modeling information change in science communication with semantically matched paraphrases

    Dustin Wright, Jiaxin Pei, David Jurgens, and Isabelle Augenstein. Modeling information change in science communication with semantically matched paraphrases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13001, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Measuring sentence-level and aspect-level (un) certainty in science communications

    Jiaxin Pei and David Jurgens. Measuring sentence-level and aspect-level (un) certainty in science communications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.14776, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Potato: The portable text annotation tool

    Jiaxin Pei, Aparna Ananthasubramaniam, Xingyao Wang, Naitian Zhou, Apostolos Dede- loudis, Jackson Sargent, and David Jurgens. Potato: The portable text annotation tool. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstra...

    2022

  46. [54]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  47. [55]

    News values and newsworthiness

    Helen Caple. News values and newsworthiness. In Oxford research encyclopedia of commu- nication. 2018. 15

    2018

  48. [56]

    The news readability problem

    Linden Dalecki, Dominic L Lasorsa, and Seth C Lewis. The news readability problem. Jour- nalism Practice, 3(1):1–12, 2009

    2009

  49. [57]

    An analysis of the readability of science and technology reporting in four national newspapers

    Tara Agarwal. An analysis of the readability of science and technology reporting in four national newspapers. PhD thesis, Loughborough University of Technology, 1992

    1992

  50. [58]

    Entertainment in science: Useful in small doses

    Michael Bourk, Bienvenido Le ´on, and Lloyd S Davis. Entertainment in science: Useful in small doses. In Communicating science and technology through online video , pages 90–106. Routledge, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Controversy in science

    Marehalli G Narasimhan. Controversy in science. Journal of biosciences , 26(3):299–304, 2001

    2001

  52. [60]

    Answering the call for a standard reliability mea- sure for coding data

    Andrew F Hayes and Klaus Krippendorff. Answering the call for a standard reliability mea- sure for coding data. Communication methods and measures, 1(1):77–89, 2007

    2007

  53. [61]

    Making sense of cronbach’s alpha

    Mohsen Tavakol and Reg Dennick. Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2:53, 2011

    2011

  54. [62]

    A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of likert-scale responses

    Regina Dittrich, Brian Francis, Reinhold Hatzinger, and Walter Katzenbeisser. A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of likert-scale responses. Statistical Modelling, 7(1):3–28, 2007

    2007

  55. [63]

    Reliability measurement without limits

    Dennis Reidsma and Jean Carletta. Reliability measurement without limits. Computational Linguistics, 34(3):319–326, 2008

    2008

  56. [64]

    worthy ofbeing published as news

    Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics.Com- putational linguistics, 34(4):555–596, 2008. A Twelve-dimension framework for public perception of sci- ence Table 1 shows the statements and descriptions for the twelve-dimensional frame...

    2008

  57. [66]

    We first categorize each outlet into three categories: General, Press Release, and SciTech blogs

    Sampling based on coverage types. We first categorize each outlet into three categories: General, Press Release, and SciTech blogs. Furthermore, we balancedly sample the same amount of papers (e.g. 80 in this case) from three settings: (1) mentioned in all three types of outle...

  58. [67]

    We further expand our sample by randomly sampling 50 news articles from each type of outlet separately

    Sampling based on outlet types. We further expand our sample by randomly sampling 50 news articles from each type of outlet separately. This step leads to 810 news stories

  59. [68]

    Upsampling based on domains. To balance the stories in different science domains, we further upsample another 50 news stories in Social Science, 50 in Humanities, and 100 in engineering, which leads to 1,010 stories

  60. [69]

    The finding needs specialized knowledge

    Upsampling based on popularity. Previous steps may lead to a sample of papers with rela- tively low popularity, which might have lower news values than papers that are covered in many news stories. In this step, we further upsample another 30 news articles that cover popular r...

  61. [2014]

    Public Understanding of Science , 26(6):704–720, 2017. 12

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.