MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007038115 · doi:10.7553/77-2-59

How to overcome some of the challenges that African scholars are facing in conducting informetrics research

2011· article· en· W2007038115 on OpenAlexaff
Isola Ajiferuke

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Libraries and Information Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformetricsLimitingCitationComputer scienceLibrary scienceBibliometricsSociologyData scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides evidence to show that the contributions of African researchers to the informetrics literature are minimal. The three main challenges identified as limiting the contributions of African scholars to the informetrics literature are lack of appropriate skills, inadequate data collection sources, and unaffordable analytical tools. To overcome these challenges, it is suggested that regular pre-conference workshops on informetrics should be organized, an African Citation Index should be developed, and the use of free analytical tools should be encouraged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.262
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.262
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0160.018
Scholarly communication0.0350.035
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.729
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of Libraries and Information ScienceSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207