The Variation of Universally Acknowledged World-Class Universities (UAWCUs) between 2010 and 2015: An Empirical Study by the Ranks of THEs, QS and ARWU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Due to certainty recognition in ranking systems, the commonly included top 100 universities are regarded as the Universally Acknowledged World-Class Universities (UAWCUs). From three university rankings-THEs, QS and ARWU from 2010 to 2015, the following conclusions can be drawn from this study: Firstly, 56 universities are commonly ranked in the top 100 by THEs, QS and ARWU in 2015, comparing with that of 47 in 2010; Secondly, comparison between 2010 and 2015 reveals that 44 of these higher ranked UAWCUs have kept on the group of top 100 universities in any ranking system. However, three lower ranked UAWCUs in 2010 have dropped out the group of top 100 universities in 2015, which are replaced by some progressed universities; Thirdly, both US and UK have nearly 3/4 and 2/3 of these UAWCUs in 2010 and 2015, respectively; Lastly, this paper denotes that consistently strives to build on its strong reputation for research excellence, consistently pursuing innovative research, delivering excellence in teaching through internationalization, obtaining support from the government would be the critical factors to promote UAWCUs to improve their performance and rankings.</p>
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".