MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415886958 · doi:10.29173/cais353

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Related Functions in Web of Science and Scopus

2013· article· fr· W2415886958 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dorothy C.P. Char, Isola Ajiferuke

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusWeb of scienceFunction (biology)HumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceMEDLINEBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares the related functions in Web of Science and Scopus. The results indicate no significance difference in the effectiveness of the related functions by references of the two systems; within Scopus, the related function by references was found to be more effective than those by authors and keywords.Analyse comparative des fonctions similaires de Web of Science et de Scopus. Les résultats ne témoignent d'aucune différence significative dans l'efficacité des fonctions similaires des deux systèmes pour les références. Dans Scopus, la fonction similaire pour les références était plus efficaces que celles pour les auteurs ou pour les mots-clés.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0270.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207