The Quantitative Analysis of Science Foundation Support and Paper Output of APEC(Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)Numbers in the Field of Library & Information Science——Based on the Platform of Web of Science
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the platform of Web of Science, this paper carries out the data investigation and quantitative analysis on the funded papers from 2008 to 2014(incomplete statistics)in the field of library information science of APEC members in order to provide some useful references for the perfection and development of China's scientific foundation system and the formulation of supporting strategies in library information science. The research on the indicators such as the ratio of funded papers, the total cited frequency, the average cited frequency per paper, and the number of donors per paper etc. finds that in the field of library information science,the ratio of funded papers of APEC members is between 6.58%~50.00%, and the average cited frequency per paper is between 1.00~6.91; USA, Canada and Australia have bigger quantities of funded papers, lower ratio of funded papers and higher average cited frequency per paper; China, Korea and Chinese Taiwan have bigger quantities of funded papers, higerh ratio of funded papers and lower average cited frequency per paper; the multilateral funding phenomenon is fairly common, but one or two donators usually play the leading role; there is abnormal distribution phenomenon of the citation of funded paper.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it