MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2226862351 · doi:10.5860/crl-254

A Review of Citation Analysis Methodologies for Collection Management

2012· review· en· W2226862351 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Hoffmann, Lise Doucette

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege & Research Libraries · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationComputer scienceCitation analysisData scienceManagement scienceKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there is a considerable body of literature that presents the results of citation analysis studies, most researchers do not provide enough detail in their methodology to reproduce the study, nor do they provide rationale for methodological decisions. In this paper, we review the methodologies used in 34 recent articles that present a “user study” citation analysis with a goal of informing collection management. We describe major themes and outliers in the methodologies and discuss factors that require careful thought and analysis. We also provide a guide to considerations for citation analysis studies, so that researchers can make informed decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0400.056
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.945
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege & Research LibrariesSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207