Understanding Interdisciplinary Collaborations as Social Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamics of interdisciplinary collaboration invite further investigation if we are to make this endeavour more rewarding and productive. We are using social network analysis to track the development of a new interdisciplinary collaboration on complex interventions to improve population health. It involves nineteen scholars across four countries. We report the Baseline network of formal relationships among the scholars, along with the impact of the collaboration on these relationships in the first 18 months. We observed statistically significant increases in the density of six types of relationship networks: citing publications by other members of the collaboration, email contact, meeting with each other (outside of the formal annual meeting), visiting one another's institution, submitting research grants together and working on research projects together. The initial strategic role in the network of key 'gate keepers' has not altered substantially (betweenness centralization of the networks), but reciprocity has increased, that is, people are more likely to cite those who have cited them and work together. Increased collaboration is also reflected in the rise in number of subgroups over time and the increase in the average number of subgroup memberships. Use of social network analysis to understand the dynamics of interdisciplinary collaborations is a relatively new field. It invites reflection about what the optimal network structures for interdisciplinary collaborations would look like.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".