Connaissances et représentations des sciences chez les artisans francophones canadiens et québécois de l’information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S'ils ont en général un très bon niveau de connaissances scientifiques, les artisans de l'information des médias francophones canadiens et québécois ne sont pas forcément des militants de la science et de la technologie. C'est ce qui ressort d'un sondage mené au printemps 2020 auprès d'un échantillon d’artisans francophones canadiens et québécois de l’information (n = 525). Leur niveau de connaissances scientifiques est significativement plus élevé que celui de la moyenne de populations occidentales interrogées ces dernières années. Le sondage permet de distinguer trois groupes en fonction de leurs représentations (plus ou moins positives) des sciences : un premier (31 % de l'ensemble) comprend des journalistes qu'on pourrait appeler des pro-science; un deuxième (20 %) est constitué de ceux et celles qui sont très critiques devant les affirmations scientifiques et les développements technologiques; le troisième (49 %) regroupe les répondants qui ont des attitudes modérées envers la science
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".