The Landscape of Science Communication in Contemporary Canada: A Focus on Anglophone Actors and Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landscape of contemporary media presents challenges and opportunities for science writers and communicators. These issues have not yet been fully understood. This paper presents the findings of collaborative work conducted to identify the growth in numbers of social media communicators who are writing about science for the Canadian public. We used emerging media research tools, including Altmetrics, and traditional survey tools. Our goal was to help Canada's professional member associations—Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC) and the Association des Communicateurs Scientifiques du Québec (ACS)— map the changing science communication landscape in Canada. Using an online survey tool, we compared survey responses from social media science communicators we identified to those of professional science communication members of SWCC and the ACS. We found that Canadian social media science communicators were younger, were paid less (or not at all) for their science communication activities, and had been communicating science for fewer years than other science communicators. They were more likely to have a science background (rather than communication, journalism or education) and were less likely to be members of professional associations. They tended to communicate with one another through their own informal networks. These findings provide professional science communication organizations in Canada with an empirical base from which to develop training, support and outreach activities aimed at improving the quality of public engagement with science in Canada.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it