Changes in Scholarly Influence in Major International Criminology Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in scholarly influence in four major international journals of the English-speaking world (ANZ, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology; BJC, British Journal of Criminology; CJC, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice; CRIM, Criminology) were measured by determining the most cited scholars in 1996 to 2000 and comparing them with the most cited scholars in 1991 to 1995 and 1986 to 1990.The number of cited authors increased by nearly 40% between 1986 to 1990 and 1996 to 2000. The most cited scholars in 1996 to 2000 were John Braithwaite in ANZ, Ken Pease in BJC, Julian V. Roberts in CJC and Robert J. Sampson in CRIM. The most cited works of the most cited authors showed that some scholars were specialized, because they had a large number of citations of one or two seminal works, usually books, and often theoretical in nature. Other scholars were versatile, because they had many different works cited a few times each. Between 1986 to 1990 and 1996 to 2000, the citations of American scholars in the other three journals decreased. Citations in the four journals in 2005 were also counted and compared with citations in 2000, 1995 and 1990. John Braithwaite was highly cited in all four journals in 11 of the 16 possible years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".