MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123128778 · doi:10.1177/0539018409344475

The value of science: changing conceptions of scientific productivity, 1869 to circa 1970

2009· article· en· W2123128778 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Information · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResearch, Science, and Academia
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityPleaBibliometricsScientometricsValue (mathematics)Social scienceSociologyEconomicsPositive economicsClassical economicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer scienceLibrary scienceLawMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Productivity is now a buzzword in science studies. Whether you consult the literature on research management, the economic literature on technology and innovation, the literature on bibliometrics or the official literature on science policy and its conceptual frameworks, what you find is analyses on productivity, often accompanied by a plea, and recipes, for increased productivity. This article documents how the concept of productivity got into the analysis of science, through the statistics on which the concept rested, and its transformation over one hundred years. It argues that, through history, the concept as applied to science has carried four meanings: productivity as reproduction, productivity as output, productivity as efficiency and productivity as outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.025
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0020.009
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.362 · 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