MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981889620 · doi:10.5430/jms.v5n1p108

On CSSCI Citation Analysis as Application Prospect of Humanities and Social Sciences Evaluation Method

2014· article· en· W1981889620 on OpenAlex
Qian Sun, Hongwei Sun

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCentral Asia Education and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNorthwest University for NationalitiesNorthwest University
KeywordsHumanitiesCitation analysisCitationSocial scienceSociologyLibrary scienceComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CSSCI (Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index) has a certain influence and reorganization in Chinese humanities and social sciences, this paper tries to analyze the reasons for the spreading influence and characteristics of CSSCI to explore application prospect of citation analysis. It is pointed out that the CSSCI Citation analysis would be an important and feasible method of academic evaluation of humanities and social sciences. Establishing and improving CSSCI is bound to become an important aspect of constructing China's evaluation system of humanities and social sciences.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.334 · 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