Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of <scp>M</scp>endeley user categories
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch, Bibliometrics
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.377
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.117 | 0.391 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.111 | 0.365 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in M endeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of C linical M edicine, E ngineering and T echnology, S ocial S cience, P hysics, and C hemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many C linical M edicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and M endeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub‐disciplines. This suggests that M endeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, M endeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Topic
- scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Université du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Audience measurementCitationAltmetricsValue (mathematics)Citation analysisInformetricsComputer scienceLibrary scienceCitation impactBibliometricsPolitical science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes