Latin American Physicists Weigh In on Funding, Demographics, Potential
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
I read with interest the article by José Luis Morán-López. He states that it is not complete; still, the newly released results of a study by Colciencias, the Colombian Science Foundation (http://www.colciencias.gov.co), necessitate a revision of Colombia’s entry in the table on page 40.Almost 750 research groups in all disciplines (natural, social, and applied sciences, and humanities) participated in the study. Sixty-nine of them were ranked in the highest category based on publications in international journals. Of these groups, 17 (one-quarter) work in physics or related areas. Four universities—Antioquia, Valle, the Andes, and National—have at least three top-ranked physics groups each. Three others—Cauca, the Industrial University of Santander, and Quindio—have one group each.Many of these research groups contribute to the early training of young scientists, who often publish their first papers while working with them, and many groups have long-term collaborations with major institutes or universities throughout the world. While the international effect of Colombian physics may be modest, the few hundred physics PhDs in this country have a significant impact on the local research community of about 4000 individuals.© 2001 American Institute of Physics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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