MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126723556 · doi:10.15517/rbt.v58i2.5227

Bibliometría de la sistemática biológica sobre América Latina durante el siglo XX en tres bases de datos mundiales

2009· article· es· W2126723556 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Biología Tropical · 2009
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and soil sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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