Alignment of Citation Behaviors of Philosophy Graduate Students and Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This study analyzes sources cited by graduate students in philosophy at the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB) in 55 PhD dissertations and master’s theses submitted between 2005 and 2010, to discover their language, age, format, discipline, whether or not they were held by the library, and how they were acquired. Results were compared to data previously collected about sources cited by philosophy faculty at UCB, in books published between 2004 and 2009, to identify how closely citation behaviors aligned between the two groups. Methods – Citations were counted in the PhD dissertations and master’s theses. Citations to monographs were searched against the local catalog to determine ownership and call number. Comparison numbers for faculty research were collected from a previous study. Results were grouped according to academic rank and analyzed by format, language, age, call number, ownership, and method of purchase. Results – Graduate students cited mostly books, though fewer than commonly found in other studies. Citations were almost entirely of English language sources. Master’s students cited slightly newer materials than doctoral students, who in turn cited newer materials than faculty. The library owned most cited books, and most of those were purchased on an approval plan. Doctoral students most frequently cited resources outside the discipline of philosophy, in contrast to master’s students and faculty. Conclusions – The citation behavior of graduate students in philosophy largely, but not entirely, mirrors that of the faculty. Further study of citation behavior in humanities disciplines would be useful. Understanding the behavior of philosophers can help philosophy librarians make informed choices about how to spend library funds.
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".