MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990771254 · doi:10.1080/0194262x.2012.705139

Four Decades of Materials are Used by Researchers in Mathematics: Evaluating Citations' Age and Publication Types in Mathematical Research

2012· article· en· W1990771254 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

VenueScience & Technology Libraries · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)Original researchLibrary scienceTest (biology)Mathematics educationMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article was to re-test previous findings that forty years of mathematics research is required to cover 90 percent of the mathematics citations. I have used an improved comprehensive methodology, extracting all articles by the University of British Columbia department of mathematics for 2011 and working with the 4,161 citations from these articles. The results confirm previous research that we need forty years of mathematics research to cover 90 percent of the materials cited by mathematics faculty. Also, I have found that in mathematics only 24 percent of citations are coming from research newer than five years. Moreover, I report that the vast majority of the mathematics citations are from journals—81 percent are journal articles, while only 15 percent are books citations.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0870.204
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.785
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.168 · 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