Academic Performance Indicators for Departments of Geography in the United States and Canada
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
A common problem faced by geography departments, particularly during times of fiscal compression and mounting pressure for accountability, is how to compare themselves and their faculty with others. The recent revolution in bibliometrics provides a growing volume of data that can be used in benchmarking exercises. In this article, we assess the production and citation of journal articles and books by tenure-track and tenured faculty in selected U.S. and Canadian geography departments (n = 17) according to a set of readily derived and transparent performance indicators derived from publicly available data. Scopus was used to assess article production and citation; Google Scholar was used for book citation. Results point to significant heterogeneity in department characteristics, productivity, and citation of published work. The number of publications, citations, and h-Index scores among scholars in the sample (n = 369) is related strongly to academic age and subfield of enquiry (i.e., physical or human geography) but not—despite apparently marked differences in output and citations—to gender.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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