Assessing the research activity of Canadian psychology departments with graduate programmes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study sought to provide a comprehensive assessment of the recent research activities within and across all Canadian psychology departments with graduate programmes. The quantity and of each department's research activity were measured by peer-reviewed article publication count and citation indexing of those publications, respectively. Each institution's /i-factor was provided as a supplementary index of research industriousness. An additional index of change in research activity over time - the slope - was also provided. Data were assessed from 1900-2008 as well as for 5-year time spans from 1994-1998, 1999-2003, and 2004-2008. Overall, results indicated that the most recent 5 years have seen a significant increase in article publications across departments. More comprehensive results of the relative comparability of departments are included. Implications for future research are discussed. Keywords: Canadian graduate psychology research, publications, citations, h-factor, university rankings The University selection process leads, arguably, to one of the most important decisions in a person's life. There are a variety of factors that contribute to the decision making process, including personal interests, geography, and finances, to name a few (Coccari & Javalgi, 1995); however, at some point the quality of the institution is likely to become a point of significant consideration. To facilitate die process of comparing the of universities, many people seek out established rankings. Ranking universities based on quality easily becomes a delicate and contentious issue. This is not surprising, given that rank and reputation have several implications for academic institutions. For example, elevated reputation can serve to increase government funding, private funding, and to attract higher students (Cyrenne & Grant, 2009). Indeed, according to a survey completed by the Presidents and Board Chairs of 50 Canadian Universities, the effort to enhance institutional reputation has been rated by institution administrators as more important than everything else a university does (Cyrenee & Grant, 2009; University of Alberta, 2000). The most salient and regularly updated rankings of Canadian institutions may have been conducted by Maclean's magazine. Since 1991, Maclean's has provided yearly rankings, assessing Canadian universities' worth according to a variety of performance measures such as student ability and characteristics, class sise, faculty qualifications, as well as parameters concerning finance, library resources, and reputation (Cramer & Page, 2007; Maclean's, 2006; Page & Cramer, 2003). Despite the popularity of the yearly Maclean's report, there are some methodological criticisms with respect to sampling, declining response rates, and refusal of participation from some Canadian universities (Cramer & Page, 2007). A more detailed analysis of these issues has been addressed in other inquiries (Cramer & Page, 2007; Page, Cramer, & Page, 2002; Page, 1996; Page, 1999). The criticisms have come from institutions near the top (e.g., University of British Columbia) and bottom (e.g., Brandon University) of the Maclean's scale, suggesting the methodology and content are generally considered objectionable (University of Alberta, 2009). Perhaps the least objectionable rankings of are derived from measures of quantity; for example, the number of graduates, the average time to graduate, the funding received, or the number of graduates who acquire employment in their field of choice. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that within the context of academic institutions, quantity of work is positively correlated with of work as measured by impact (Feist, 1997; Hagstrom, 1971; Simonton, 1988). Such associations provide a tentative basis for creating indices of quality that may be more robust and globally palatable than many of Maclean's. …
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".