MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041105360 · doi:10.1002/meet.1450410160

Can web citations be a measure of impact? An investigation of journals in the life sciences

2004· article· en· W2041105360 on OpenAlexaff
Liwen Vaughan, Debora Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Impact factorVariety (cybernetics)Web of scienceCitationCitation analysisLibrary scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebComputer scienceMEDLINEBiologyStatisticsMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine traditional and Web citations to journal articles in biology and genetics. There is significant correlation between citations in these two formats. Journals with higher numbers of Web citations tend to have more citations indicating intellectual impact (citations from papers or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Web citations show a broader geographic coverage and capture a greater number and variety of uses of journal articles.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicWeb visibility and informetricsFrench-language works237,207