Founding concepts and foundational work: Establishing the framework for the use of acknowledgments as indicators
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Building on the concepts of the reward system of science and social capital, Blaise Cronin brought forth the idea that rewards in science are threefold, forming a triangle built from authorship, citations, and acknowledgements. Of these, acknowledgments are the hardest to grasp and evaluate. After nearly 45 years of multidisciplinary research on acknowledgments and a corpus of over 80 scientific contributions, there is still no consensus on the value of acknowledgments in scholarly communication. This study aims to further acknowledgments research with a meta-synthesis of the literature, establishing the theoretical framework for the use of acknowledgments as bibliometric indicators. Based on in-progress content analyses, broad categories emerge revealing contextual information crucial to the understanding of acknowledgments. Applying our framework on data from the Web of Science, further phases of this study will provide large-scale findings based on a multidisciplinary sample. From there, it will be possible to envision recommendations for the standardization and use of acknowledgments as indicators. However, grounding the study of acknowledgments in their underlying theoretical considerations and conceptual foundations will ensure these recommendations respect the diverse traditions of the scientific field. Conference Topic Theory Introduction and background It is a broadly recognized fact that the scientific field has a very “high degree of codification”, to borrow the Bourdieusian phrase (Bourdieu, 1996, p. 226). How and when one is admitted into the academic community, how a researcher acquires credibility within the scientific realm, and what contributions turn a researcher into a renowned scholar are endlessly evaluated, measured, and scrutinized. This high degree of codification helps to both foster and assuage the paradox that underlies the use of empirical measures to define what remains an intrinsically nuanced and contextualized concept: scientific “success”. Merton (1973) presented the sociology of science with the reward system of science, its recognition paradigm, and the nepotistic undertones of the Matthew effect; Bourdieu reframed the concept of recognition to befit the concept of symbolic capital. Blaise Cronin brought forth the idea that these rewards are threefold, forming a triangle built from authorship, citations, and acknowledgements (Cronin, 1995; Cronin, 2005; Cronin & Weaver-Wozniak, 1993). These are all part of the illusio, which encompasses the stakes of the academic “game”, its rules, and the very fact that its rewards are worth pursuing (Bourdieu, 1988, p. 56). Of these rewards, acknowledgments are the hardest to grasp and evaluate; reasons range from lack of standardization to name-dropping and ambiguous wording (Cronin, 1995; Cronin, 2014), as well as the placement of acknowledgments, which can vary from in-text mentions to paratextual elements situated outside the body of the text (Genette, 1997). Researchers have also called for stricter policies to inform the use of acknowledgments, prescribe their form, offer conditions for inclusion, or establish their ethical ramifications (Brown, 2009; Chubin, 1975; Pontille, 2001). For example, while Cronin’s research (Cronin, 1995) showed that in
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.
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 | 0,014 | 0,164 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,053 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle