MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Interdisciplinary Integration Affect LIS Doctoral Students’ Publishing Productivity and Quality in North America?

2018· article· en· W2887204237 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Shu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education for Library and Information Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingProductivityLibrary scienceAffect (linguistics)Quality (philosophy)DisciplinePolitical scienceSociologyMedical educationSocial scienceEconomic growthMedicineComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated LIS doctoral students’ publication in North America since the 1960s and measured the impact of interdisciplinarity such as doctoral advisors’ disciplinary background and collaboration network on their publication productivity and quality. After analyzing the LIS doctoral graduates’ publications since the 1960s, this study indicates that the interdisciplinarity integration of LIS has a positive impact on LIS doctoral students’ publishing productivity but no impact on their publishing quality.

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0200.041
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.121
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education for Library and Information ScienceSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207