The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study continues a long history of author cocitation analysis (and more recently, author bibliographic coupling analysis) of the intellectual structure of information science ( IS ) into the time period 2006 to 2010 ( IS 2006–2010). We find that web technologies continue to drive developments, especially at the research front, although perhaps more indirectly than before. A broadening of perspectives is visible in IS 2006–2010, where network science becomes influential and where full‐text analysis methods complement traditional computer science influences. Research in the areas of the h‐index and mapping of science appears to have been highlights of IS 2006–2011. This study tests and confirms a forecast made previously by comparing knowledge‐base and research‐front findings for IS 2001–2005, which expected both the information retrieval ( IR ) systems and webometrics specialties to shrink in 2006 to 2010. A corresponding comparison of the knowledge base and research front of IS 2006–2010 suggests a continuing decline of the IR systems specialty in the near future, but also a considerable (re)growth of the webometrics area after a period of decline from 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010, with the latter due perhaps in part to its contribution to an emerging web science.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.156 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.121 | 0.238 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it