PORTUGUESE PUBLICATION IN THE AIM OF REGIONAL SCIENCE: A STUDY OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN RPER FROM 2003 TO 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a study of the full content of articles published by RPER, the Portuguese Review of Regional Studies, from the time it was launched in 2003 until the first quarter of 2015. RPER is a journal edited by the Portuguese section of the European Regional Science Association, which was established in the first half of the 1980s. The Association (APDR) and the journal are the result of contributions by researchers and technicians from different scientific fields, including mainly Economics, Geography, Sociology, Engineering and Architecture. The main focus of these contributions is the socio-economic life of concrete sites, and the way this life is conditioned by resources and capabilities, the historical and cultural heritage and institutions. Content analysis was undertaken to identify the main subjects chosen during the total period under analysis, the nature of the articles published (theoretical or empirical) and the main analytical framework used. The analysis also covers sub-periods to investigate major trends found in terms of subjects chosen and analytical methods, questioning the rationale behind them. The paper concludes with a few notes regarding the social echo the research received and an identification of the main limitations of the research. In the first part of the article, we conduct a summary review of the genesis and evolution of Regional Science at international level to serve as a basis for the empirical approach developed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.057 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".