MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414643156 · doi:10.24434/j.scoms.2025.03.7150

Qui fabrique l’information scientifique au Québec? Analyse du portrait des journalistes scientifiques 2023

2025· article· fr· W4414643156 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fábio Henrique Pereira, Maxime Bilodeau

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Communication Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitIdentity (music)Diversification (marketing strategy)Identity change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.015
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.379
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.045 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Communication SciencesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207