Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Smith, C.H. ( 2000 ) Biodiversity studies: a bibliographic review . Scarecrow Press, Inc. , Lanham, Maryland . xiii + 459 pp, two bibliographies, three indices. Hardback: Price US$69.50. ISBN 0 810 83754 4 . This book is an attempt to document the literature on biodiversity. It is organized into two bibliographies: one listing 5714 papers and monographs (but, importantly, it omits most papers from edited collections), and one listing 166 special issues of serial publications. To support these bibliographies are three indices: general, by geographical region, and by ‘organism-centred subject’. The book is easy to use, interesting, informative and fun; but as one browses through it, one finds many inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and uncertainties. The book appears to cover all work published before 1999 (particularly 1986–98), but there are some glaring omissions for 1998, and I wonder how complete the coverage is for that year. At the other end of the chronology, there is a useful listing of pre-1950 works. While this is interesting, coverage of such early work is patchy — for instance, Alexander von Humboldt does not feature in the book. Such an omission can only be partially explained by the authors’ admission that the works included are primarily those written in English. Sometimes one wonders what criteria the author used for inclusion of publications. I came across several papers which I know well, that have little to do with biodiversity. Other works, which are of direct relevance, are not listed — including about a quarter of the pre-1999 references on the biodiversity reading lists that I give to undergraduates. Similarly, there are many omissions of works from the indices, which are highly appropriate to the relevant term. However, the degree of cross-referencing is such that, if one looks up a number of related terms in the indices, on any given subject, one is likely to find most of the relevant works. One of the best features of this book is the bibliometric ratings. The works are scored according to their citation history (and, for monologues, their library holdings and review history). At a glance, one can therefore get some idea of how influential the work has been. This is very useful and interesting; and it provokes thought about why some excellent works have had such little influence (and vice-versa). In the bibliographies, many of the entries include useful ‘added terms’ and short annotations, which give information not obvious from the works’ titles. However, I think that the book would have benefited from greater usage of the keywords listed in journals. Overall, I think that this book is a good introductory documentation of the biodiversity literature, and I (along with many others) will find it very useful in the near future. However, one should bear in mind that it does not provide comprehensive coverage, and is already somewhat out of date. This sort of work is perhaps more suited to being a web or CD-ROM resource (allowing frequent updating and much more information about each listed publication) than a book.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».