MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095560558 · doi:10.3138/jsp.34.2.108

Single Authors Are Not Alone: Colleagues Often Help

2003· article· en· W2095560558 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Hartley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKeele University
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the numbers of times single, pairs, and groups of three or more authors acknowledge the help of colleagues and/or referees in their published papers. The results indicate that significantly more single authors acknowledge the help of others than do pairs who, in turn, do so more than larger groups. However, there were no significant differences between the numbers of acknowledgements made to referees by the three groups.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.016

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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.072 · 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 designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207