Scoliosis: A scientometric assessment of global publications during 2007–16
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examined 11000 global publications in Scoliosis research, as indexed in scopus database covering the 10 year period 2007–16. The Scoliosis research output registered a growth of 5.95% per annum and averaged citation impact of 9.09 citations per paper. Of the 80 countries which participated in global Scoliosis research, the top 15 contributed global publication share ranging individually between 2.34% and 32.25%. The USA accounted for the highest publication share (32.25%), followed by China (8.45%), Canada (6.84%) and others. Together, the top 15 most productive countries in Scoliosis research accounted for 92.51% of global publication share. Medicine among subjects accounted for the highest global publications share (94.08%) in Scoliosis research. The top 20 most productive organizations and authors together contributed 27.09% and 19.07% global publication share respectively and 51.23% and 34.26% global citation share respectively. Of the total publications output in Scoliosis research, 95.53% appeared in journal medium. The top 15 journals published 36.24% share of total output that appeared in journal medium. Of the total global output in Scoliosis research, 80 high cited papers registered 100+ citations per paper with an average 165.59 citations per paper in 10 years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".