Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations, notably in assessing the academic impact of work in promotion and tenure decisions. We compared bibliographic and Web citations to articles in 46 journals in library and information science. For most journals (57%), Web citations correlated significantly with both bibliographic citations listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index and the ISI's Journal Impact Factor. Many of the Web citations represented intellectual impact, coming from other papers posted on the Web (30%) or from class readings lists (12%). Web citation counts were typically higher than bibliographic citation counts for the same article. Journals with more Web citations tended to have Web sites that provided tables of contents on the Web, while less cited journals did not have such publicity. The number of Web citations to journal articles increased from 1992 to 1997.
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 | 0.036 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".