Bibliometría de la sistemática biológica sobre América Latina durante el siglo XX en tres bases de datos mundiales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a review of the biological systematic research in Latin America during the twentieth century, applying a bibliometric analysis to the information contained in international databases with the largest number of biological records: Biosis (since 1969), CAB (since 1910) and Science Citation Index (since 1900), to recognize certain patterns and trends regarding the document production. We obtained 19079 documents and 1387 journals for Biosis, 14326 and 2537 for CAB, 3257 and 1636 for SCI. Of the documents, 54.6% related to new species, 15.3% dealt with morphology, 14.9% keys, 12.5% descriptions, 10.6% cases of synonymies, 6% new genera, 4.9% new geographical records, 23.6% geographical distribution, 4.2% redescriptions, and 3.6% with new nomenclatural combinations. The regions mentioned were South America with 11.9%, Central America with 4% and America (all) with 2.56%. Nineteen Latin American countries appear, whereas outside this region we found the United States of America with 12.6% of representation and Canada with 3%. Animals (65.6%) were the most studied taxa, which was 1.7 times higher than what was published for plants (37%), 11 times higher than fungi (6%) and nearly 30 times higher than microorganisms (2.3%). Out of the 155 journals that produced 66% of the papers, 76.5% were better represented in Biosis, 21.4% in CAB and 2% in SCI. Twenty-nine journals published 33% of the articles, the maximum number of records obtained was 69% for Biosis, CAB 24% and 6.9% for SCI, three (10.3%) are in biology, 11 (37.9%) in botany, 13 (44.8%) zoology, and two (6.9%) paleontology; eight of these journals (27.5%) were published in Latin America and twenty were indexed in the Science Citation Index. In the last two years more journals of the region that publish on taxonomy have been indexed, but their impact factor is still low. However, the impact factor of a number of Latin American journals that published biodiversity increased with time. Countries that are more interested in studying the Latin American biota from the taxonomic point of view are Brazil, the United States, Argentina and Mexico. The most active institutions in this discipline were the Universidade de São Paulo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; together they produced 24% of the documents.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.090 | 0.140 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".