MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W164663678

Citation analysis to reconstruct the dynamics of Antarctic ozone hole research and formulation of the Montreal Protocol

2013· article· en· W164663678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olle Persson, Prabir G. Dastidar

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolOzone layerOzoneAtmosphere (unit)Ozone depletionEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesLayer (electronics)AstrobiologySafeguardingMeteorologyChemistryGeologyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ozone layer acts like a shield in safeguarding the Earth by preventing the harmful ultraviolet radiations from entering into the atmosphere. Reported damage to the ozone layer in 1985 was a significant milestone in Antarctic science research. The research work played a significant role in generating international socio-political debate on this great environmental crisis. This article aims to reconstruct the intellectual developments in the field and identify important scientific events which contributed to the formulation of the world’s most successful multilateral treaty, the Montreal Protocol. The dynamics of the research field was mapped using a newly developed indicator – weighted direct citations (WDC). The WDC value indicates intellectual closeness between two citations in terms of co-citations and shared references. Direct citations were weighted with shared references and co-citations to derive WDC values. An attempt was made to decompose the citation network of articles to identify significant activity layers. The work of J. C. Farman et al. (1985) and S. Solomon (1986), which are the top two most cited significant papers in the subject accounts for top WDC values jointly.

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

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207