Impact of astronomical research from different countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impact of astronomical research carried out by different countries has been compared by analysing the 1000 most‐cited astronomy papers published 1991‐8 (125 from each year). 61% of the citations are to papers with first authors at institutions in the USA, 11% in the UK, 5% in Germany, 4% in Canada, 3% in Italy and 3% in France. 17% are to papers with first authors in ESO countries. The number of citations is approximately proportional to the number of IAU members in a given country. The number of citations per IAU astronomer is highest in the USA, Switzerland and the UK. Within continental Europe, the number of citations per IAU astronomer varies little from country to country, but is slightly higher in the north than in the south. The sample of 1000 papers maps regional subject preferences. 62% of the extragalactic papers in the sample were published from the USA, 15% from the UK, 23% from other countries (mainly in continental Europe). 62% of the papers on stars were also published from the USA, but the fractions from the UK and from other countries are 2% and 36% respectively. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it