Changing Institutional Research Productivity of United States’ Science Education Programs: 2000s v. 1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the major science education programs in the United States, where the science education researchers published their research during the first decade of the twenty-first century. This research study of the scholarly productivity of science education programs at United States’ institutions of higher education is compared with the last decade of 1990s (Barrow, Settlage, & Germann, 2008). Each issue of the eight research journals (Journal of Research is Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, School Science and Mathematics, Journal of Computers in Math and Science Teaching, Journal of Science Education and Technology, and Journal of Elementary Science Education) published in the 2000s provided the author(s) and their institutional affiliation. The resultant ranking of raw and weighted counts for the top 30 U.S science educations programs shows variation in journals where research was published. There were almost 50% of the 2000s top 30 institutions which were not listed for the 1990s. Potential explanations for variations and uses for ranking are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.135 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.156 | 0.244 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".