MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965277567 · doi:10.1108/14684520310502298

Which academic subjects have most online impact? A pilot study and a new classification process

2003· article· en· W1965277567 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Information Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)VisibilityProcess (computing)Point (geometry)Computer scienceDisseminationWorld Wide WebPsychologyMathematicsGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the Web by academic researchers is discipline‐dependent and highly variable. It is increasingly central for sharing information, disseminating results and publicising research projects. This pilot study seeks to identify the subjects that have the most impact on the Web, and look for national differences in online subject visibility. The highest impact sites were from computing, but there were major national differences in the impact of engineering and technology sites. Another difference was that Taiwan had more high impact non‐academic sites hosted by universities. As a pilot study, the classification process itself was also investigated and the problems of applying subject classification to academic Web sites discussed. The study draws out a number of issues in this regard, having no simple solutions and point to the need to interpret the results with caution.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.282 · 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