MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612845114 · doi:10.1177/1049731517707058

Citation Impact Factors Among Faculty in Canadian Social Work Programs

2017· article· en· W2612845114 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationAccreditationSocial workCitation impactMedical educationWork (physics)PsychologyLibrary scienceMedicinePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We report impact data on faculty ( N = 454) working in 30 of Canada’s accredited social work programs during 2016. Method: Using the Publish or Perish website, faculty member’s h and g indices, and their most frequently cited articles published in the last decade were analyzed both individually and by school. Findings: (a) computed h scores were R a 0.8–11.9, M = 4.4 and g scores were R a 1.3–21.3, M = 7.7; (b) the top-ranked citation impact for programs were the University of Toronto, Dalhousie University, and the University of British Columbia; (c) larger programs had significantly higher citation impact for both h and g scores than smaller programs; (d) 17 (27%) of these authors had 10-year citation counts ranging from 176 to 666; and (e) their topics related to children/youth/adolescents (35%) and health care (35%). Discussion: Based on our work in this area, we offer some constructive recommendations to Canadian social work programs and faculty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.722
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.072 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it