Institutional and Individual Publication Productivity in Selected Adult Education Journals, 1993-2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining institutional and individual publication productivity in scholarly journals is a commonly used index of institutional quality, influence, and prestige within a discipline. Expanding and extending the work of Rachal and Sargent (1995b), the present study surveyed the Commission of Professors of Adult Education for research journal preferences and examined the resulting five research journals from 1993-2002 for 10-year institutional productivity, institutional productivity by 5-year breakout, institutional productivity in each journal, individual author productivity, and single versus multiple authorship patterns by gender and by journal. Results yielded 65 per cent single authorship among 806 articles written by 1214 cumulative authors in two British, two American, and one Canadian journal. Institutions from four different countries emerged in the top 10 as the most productive for the 10-year period. Résumé L'examen de la productivité institutionnelle et individuelle en publication universitaire constitue l'une des façons les plus communément utilisées pour mesurer le degré d'expertise, d'influence et de prestige d'une institution dans une discipline donnée. En poursuivant et élargissant le travail amorcé par Rachal et Sargent (1995b), la présente étude a effectué un sondage auprès des membres de la CPAE (Commission of Professors of Adult Education) en vue de retenir cinq revues universitaires, qui ont été examinées de 1993 à 2002, afin de mesurer la productivité institutionnelle sur une période de dix ans et par tranche de cinq ans, la productivité individuelle et le nombre d'articles collectifs par rapport au nombre d'articles à auteur unique par genre et par revue universitaire. La recherche a démontré que 65 pourcent des 806 articles avaient été écrits par un seul auteur, qu'un total de 1214 auteurs ont écrits dans deux revues universitaires britanniques, deux revues américaines et une revue canadienne. Les dix institutions les plus productives sur une période de dix ans proviennent de quatre differents pays.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".