Is the year of first publication a good proxy of scholars’ academic age?
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
Individual scholars are the central unit of the research system and are increasingly the focus of bibliometric studies. An important aspect in the study of individual scholars is their academic age, which allows for the comparison of scholars that have been academically active in a similar period of time. Based on a sample of Quebec researchers for whom their year of birth, PhD year as well as the year of their first publication are known, we study the relationships among these ages with the aim of determining how their year of first publication can be used to estimate their ‘real’ age. Moderate correlations have been found among the ages, and the first publication year has a higher correlation with the PhD year than with the birth year. However, an important dispersion of scholars across the different ages is observed; thus, the year of first publication can only be taken as proxy of the real age of scholars. Alternatively, the consideration of cohorts of around 5 years seems to be a reasonable approach. Further research will focus on the exploration of other bibliometric indicators in order to refine the preliminary developments discussed here. Conference Topic Methods and techniques Introduction In individual-level bibliometric studies, the socio-demographic characteristics of scholars are of central importance to understand and better frame the results obtained (Costas & Bordons, 2011; Gingras, Lariviere, Macaluso, & Robitaille, 2008; Mauleon & Bordons, 2006). Among these socio-demographic characteristics we can mention gender (Lariviere, Ni, Gingras, Cronin, & Sugimoto, 2013; Mauleon & Bordons, 2006), mobility (Canibano, Otamendy, & Solis, 2011; Franzoni, Scellato, & Stephan, 2012), and nationality (Moed & Halevi, 2014), among others. The development of large-scale author-name disambiguation algorithms (Caron & Van Eck, 2014) as well as the increasing quantity of papers’ metadata indexed (e.g. author names and surnames, affiliations, e-mail data, etc.) have allowed the study of the socio-demographic characteristics of scholars at a larger scale. For example, the analysis of the first author names of authors (Lariviere et al., 2013) allowed the macro analysis of gender disparities worldwide. The large-scale analysis of the relationship between author names, affiliations and countries collected from scientific publications has open the possibility of studying academic mobility at the world level (Moed, Aisati, & Plume, 2013), as well as the nationality (Costas & Noyons, 2013), migrations (Moed & Halevi, 2014) or even the ethnic origin (Freeman, 2014) of scholars. A critical element for individual-level bibliometrics is the age of the researchers (Costas & Bordons, 2011; Lariviere, Archambault, & Gingras, 2008; Levin & Stephan, 1989), especially from the point of view of its relationship with productivity (Falagas, Ierodiakonou, & Alexiou, 2008; Levin & Stephan, 1989). Age is also a common point of debate in science policy, as it aims to compare scholars of the same ‘academic age’ (Bornmann & Leydesdorff,
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,000 | 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