Editorial: The 10th Rothkopf Rankings of Universities’ Contributions to the INFORMS Practice Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the 10th ranking of universities according to their contributions to the INFORMS practice literature. Two rankings are given, each based on a different metric: visibility is the number of times a university is listed as the primary academic affiliation in the INFORMS practice literature; yield is the equivalent number of INFORMS practice papers attributable to each university based on author primary academic affiliation. For U.S. universities, Georgia Institute of Technology ranks first in visibility, followed by the Naval Postgraduate School in second, and the Colorado School of Mines in third; for yield, the Naval Postgraduate School ranks first, followed by the Colorado School of Mines in second, and Georgia Institute of Technology third. For non-U.S. universities, the University of Chile ranks first and the University of Toronto ranks second for both visibility and yield, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology is third for visibility, and Cass Business School is third for yield.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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".