Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the issue of cross‐continental publishing in real estate research to understand the research interaction between the two major English‐speaking countries and to determine if a home bias exists. This study also determines the extent to which authors from other countries publish in US and UK journals, and provide a ranking of non‐US universities and authors. The survey of top US and UK real estate journals from 1993 through 1998 reveals that a home bias exists. The home bias concentration is higher in US journals than in UK journals, while UK journals exhibit more balanced origins, emanating not only from the USA/Canada, but also from Australia, New Zealand and Asia. In addition, the study reveals that the Universities of Reading, Ulster and Glasgow are well placed among European universities, while the National University of Singapore ranks well in Asia. Top US researchers tend to publish exclusively in US journals; likewise the same is observed for UK researchers. However, some notable exceptions are observed. Finally, a possible reason for the home bias could be the different research approaches undertaken by US and UK journals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.006 |
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".