ArticlePeerJ2019
Monitoring public awareness about the endangered northern bald ibis: a case study involving primary school children as citizen scientists.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The pillars of the sea: strategies to achieve successful marine citizen science programs in the Mediterranean area.BMC ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Primary pupils, science and a model bird species: Evidence for the efficacy of extracurricular science education.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCitizen science has evolved over the past decades by motivating members of the public to interact with scientists and actively participate in scientific research and monitoring. For this purpose, a proficient communication is mandatory in order to efficiently convey messages and reduce the gap of knowledge between scientists and lay people. In the present study, we aimed at evaluating the multiplying effect of children, who were trained to communicate their knowledge on an endangered bird species in order to engage the local community in the long-term ornithological monitoring of the free flying and individually marked colony of northern bald ibis (NBI,
methodsPupils of the local primary schools were in regular contact with researchers, enjoyed outdoor encounters with the birds, and were invited to talk about their experience with as many people as possible. Later on, they acted as surveyors to assess the knowledge of the public on (i) the general knowledge about the species, (ii) specific knowledge about the local colony, and (iii) attitudes towards science. In two different years of evaluation (2012 and 2016) a total number of 387 persons were surveyed. The questions were generated together with the pupils and their teachers and the questionnaires were similar for both years of evaluation. All queries were in a closed format.
resultsOur results show an increase in the proportion of correct answers provided by the surveyed persons between the two years of evaluation. Education-based activities may encourage children to effectively act as multipliers of information and attitudes. This has the potential to induce sustainable changes with respect to attitude towards science, at least among local communities. Furthermore, the study suggests caution with the quality of some information reported by citizen scientists, which might be solved by more careful training actions and more specific information about local particularities. Even though the study would have gained more informative power with some additional precautions than in its current form, our findings recommend the empowerment of pupils as multipliers of scientific knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.