Canada: One country, two cultures: Two routes to science communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter is divided into two main parts, the history of science communication in Canada, followed by an account of its development in Quebec.Science communication in Canada cannot be understood without considering the 'Two Cultures', with few influences or contact between Quebec and the rest of Canada.Science communication in Quebec largely developed on its own, and later influenced the development of science communication in France and other Francophone nations.Significant space will be devoted in this chapter to its development. Science communication approaches in Canada Early approaches to science communication in CanadaLike many other industrialised societies, the first half of the 19th century in Canada was marked by the activities of a commercial and professional bourgeoisie steeped in the cultural and intellectual ideas of the Enlightenment.The thrust of science communication initiatives came from learned societies and a collection of individual initiatives.Among these societies were the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec (1824), the Natural History Society of Montreal (1827) and the Mechanics' Institute (1830).While aimed at the elite, these societies contributed to science communication through talks at libraries and natural history museums, aiming to complement humanist education with science culture (Schiele et al., 1994).Since Montreal was the economic capital of Canada at the time, it is difficult to distinguish Canadian science communication initiatives from specifically Quebec initiatives during those early years.In the early part of the 19th century, the political capital of Canada shifted often, before being fixed at Ottawa on the now Ontario-Quebec border.However, Montreal remained the economic capital well into the 20th century.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".