Studying the Publication Pattern of Canadian Computer Scientists / Étude des pratiques de publication des scientifiques canadiens en informatique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the publication pattern of Canadian computer scientists and compared the impact of conference papers and journal articles published by these researchers. It was found that conference proceedings are the preferred venue for scholarly communication, but the impact of conference papers is not comparable to that of journal articles. The potential reasons for the lower impact of conference papers are discussed, and possible approaches to improve the current scholarly communication system in computer science are proposed. Cette recherche explore les pratiques de publication des scientifiques canadiens en informatique et compare l’impact des présentations à des colloques et des articles de revues savantes publiées par ces chercheurs. Nous avons constaté que les actes de colloque sont le lieu privilégié pour la communication scientifique, mais que l’impact des présentations à des colloques n’est pas comparable à celui des articles de revues. Nous discutons des raisons possibles de l’impact plus faible des présentations à des colloques, et nous proposons des approches possibles pour améliorer le système actuel de communication savante en informatique.
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 | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.074 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".