Communication and cohesion in aquatic science literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1982, Frank Rigler challenged limnologists and fisheries biologists to address gaps in theory, experimental research, and management practices that have limited the advancement of both fields. We followed up on Rigler’s concerns using a literature study to determine the objectives and methodologies of studies across a range of subdisciplines within aquatic science. We surveyed both recent and historical literature from five leading journals that range in emphasis to include a broad array of subjects in aquatic science. Literature from 1982 was compared with recent publications to determine how communication and integration within aquatic science has changed. We found limited changes in the breadth of coverage provided by any journal. We further analyzed contemporary literature according to subject matter, methods of analysis, location of the research, and scale of study. We used correspondence analysis to identify the differences and associations across these fields and to uncover those particular research areas that have more clearly bridged some of these gaps previously identified. Our findings indicate that there are still clear divisions within modern aquatic science literature and that the journals considered typically show specific emphasis in the types of questions posed, methods of analysis, and the geographic representation of authors.
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 | 0.024 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.052 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".