MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046954075 · doi:10.1177/0539018403042001795

Measuring Science: is there “Basic Research” without Statistics?

2003· article· en· W2046954075 on OpenAlexaff
Benoı̂t Godin

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Information · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Social statisticsPoliticsPolitical scienceSociologyBasic researchOfficial statisticsStatisticsScience policySocial sciencePublic administrationComputer scienceMathematicsLibrary scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic research is a central concept of science and science policy. This article examines the role statistics played in helping to create the concept and shows how it was in part constructed by statistics to serve social and political agendas. Most of this statistical work was conducted in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, then standardized by the OECD in the 1960s.

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)0.163
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.391
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1630.391
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.024
Science and technology studies0.0050.067
Scholarly communication0.0210.050
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science InformationSame topicTwentieth Century Scientific DevelopmentsFrench-language works237,207