Do Standard Bibliometric Measures Correlate with Academic Rank of Full‐Time Pediatric Dentistry Faculty Members?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship between quantitative measures of research productivity and academic rank for full-time pediatric dentistry faculty members in accredited U.S. and Canadian residency programs. For each pediatric dentist in the study group, academic rank and bibliometric factors derived from publicly available databases were recorded. Academic ranks were lecturer/instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Bibliometric factors were mean total number of publications, mean total number of citations, maximum number of citations for a single work, and h-index (a measure of the impact of publications, determined by total number of publications h that had at least h citations each). The study sample was comprised of 267 pediatric dentists: 4% were lecturers/instructors, 44% were assistant professors, 30% were associate professors, and 22% were professors. The mean number of publications for the sample was 15.4±27.8. The mean number of citations was 218.4±482.0. The mean h-index was 4.9±6.6. The h-index was strongly correlated with academic rank (r=0.60, p=0.001). For this sample, an h-index of ≥3 was identified as a threshold for promotion to associate professor, and an h-index of ≥6 was identified as a threshold for promotion to professor. The h-index was strongly correlated with the academic rank of these pediatric dental faculty members, suggesting that this index may be considered a measure for promotion, along with a faculty member's quality and quantity of research, teaching, service, and clinical activities.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".