Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences Scholars' Language Choices in International Scholarly Publishing: A Ten-Year Survey
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
International scholarly publishing is a multifaceted and interconnected activity around the globe. This paper critically examines the linguistic facet of scholarly publication as a global phenomenon. We investigated the distribution of languages in the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index lists to determine Chinese humanities and social sciences scholars' choice of language as recorded in the Web of Science when publishing in selected disciplines. Covering a ten-year period from 2005 to 2014, the findings show that English was by far the most preferred language. Although other languages have a presence in the two key lists, Asian languages were conspicuously absent. Chinese scholars' language preferences have been almost exclusively confined to English and Chinese, and they have limited multilingual abilities for scholarly publication. The findings are discussed in relation to equity and multidirectionality in international scholarly publishing.
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 | 0.166 | 0.489 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.064 | 0.055 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.506 | 0.469 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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