Qui fabrique l’information scientifique au Québec? Analyse du portrait des journalistes scientifiques 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente un portrait des journalistes scientifiques québécois en soulignant les éléments de l’identité et les rôles professionnels de cette spécialité journalistique. Il se fonde sur des réponses à un sondage mené en 2023 auprès de 39 journalistes scientifiques qui résident ou travaillent au Québec. Les données suggèrent que ce segment est majoritairement féminin, relativement âgé et très éduqué. Les résultats révèlent une dualité dans la configuration du marché de travail au Québec. La base de la pyramide salariale est composée surtout par des journalistes indépendants qui gagnent moins que leurs pairs qui travaillent dans d’autres spécialités. Au sommet de cette pyramide se placent les journalistes scientifiques qui ont un emploi permanent généralement dans le système public de radio et télévision. Le rôle de courroie de transmission, responsable de traduire des informations scientifiques à destination d’un public non spécialisé, domine le segment des journalistes scientifiques. Les résultats suggèrent une diversification des rôles secondaires, avec un poids relativement important attribué par les répondants aux dimensions de décideur de l’ordre du jour, chien de garde, connecteur et amuseur. Cet article innove en proposant une typologie des rôles professionnels adaptée au segment du journalisme scientifique.This article presents a profile of science journalists in Quebec, highlighting the identity and professional roles of this “segment” of journalism. It is based on responses to a survey conducted in 2023 among 39 science journalists living or working in Quebec. The data suggest a predominantly female, relatively old, and highly educated segment. The results reveal a duality in the configuration of the labour market in Quebec. At the base of the salary pyramid are mainly freelance journalists, who earn less than their counterparts in other segments of journalism. Science journalists, who have permanent jobs mainly in the public broadcasting system, are at the top of the pyramid. Within the segment of science journalists, the role of conductor, responsible for translating scientific information for a non-specialist audience, emerges as dominant. The results suggest a diversification of secondary roles, with respondents giving relatively high weight to the dimensions of agenda-setter, watchdog, connector, and entertainer. This article breaks new ground by proposing a typology of professional roles adapted to the science journalism segment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".