{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02062780269058296, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004484304932735426, 'mean_word_length': 5.72289156626506, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Scientific explanation in US newspaper science stories

Mass media are important sources of science information for many adults. However, this study, which reports a content analysis of science stories in 100 US newspapers, found that while 70 newspapers carried science stories, the majority of these stories contained little scientific explanation. Ten percent or less of content was comprised of elucidating (definitions of terms) and/or quasi-scientific explanations (explications of relationships among scientific concepts). The study also investigated the effect of production-based variables on scientific explanation. Stories in feature and science sections contained more explanation than did stories in news sections, perhaps indicating that science stories in feature and science sections have more of an explanatory mission. Additionally, the more time a writer had to compose a story, the more explanation in the story. This result suggests that writing explanations is cognitively demanding. Interestingly, longer stories did not contain significantly more scientific explanation than shorter stories.