Frente e Elite de Pesquisa da Isko-Ibérico, a partir dos trabalhos apresentados no período de 2005 a 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishThe study questions how the Research Elite and the Research Front are configured through the papers presented to ISKO-Iberico, from 2005 to 2015, in a corpus of 379 researches. To highlight the Research Elite, the study ranks the most productive researchers by applying Price's Elitism Law. To determine the Research Front, it performs the citation analysis, taking the most cited authors, analyzes and compares the two datasets, resulting in some common researchers in both the Research Front and the Research Elite. As main results, it verifies that: Guimaraes, J.A.C. (15); Fujita, M.S.L. (12); Almeida, C.C. de (8); Bufrem, L.S. (8); and Agustin-Lacruz, Ma del C. are the most productive authors, evidencing the domain of Brazilian and Spanish researchers. Among the most cited authors, the following stand out: Dalhberg, I. (39); Hjorland, B. (35); Campos, M. L. de A. (17); Izquierdo Alonso, M. (16); and Wittgenstein, L. (16), as part of the list of authors coming from different institutions such as Brazil, the United States, Spain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Belgium, India, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Tunisia and Uruguay. Finally, we note that the researchers Guimaraes, J.A.C.; Lara, M.L.G.; Moreiro Gonzalez, J.A.; and Rodriguez Bravo, B. appeared in both the Research Elite and the Research Front. This indicates that these researchers effectively contribute to the assignment of theoretical-methodological elements that underlie the domain of Knowledge Organization and propose procedures to understand the domain in question. portuguesO estudo questiona como se configuram a Elite de Pesquisa e a Frente de Pesquisa por meio dos trabalhos apresentados ao ISKO-Iberico, no periodo de 2005 a 2015, em um corpus de 379 pesquisas. Para destacar a Elite de Pesquisa, ranqueia os pesquisadores mais produtivos, aplicando a Lei do Elitismo de Price. Para determinar a Frente de Pesquisa, realiza a analise de citacao, tomando os autores mais citados, analisa e compara os dois conjunto de dados, resultando alguns pesquisadores em comum tanto na Frente de Pesquisa como na Elite de Pesquisa. Como principais resultados, verifica que: Guimaraes, J.A.C. (15); Fujita, M.S.L. (12); Almeida, C.C. de (8); Bufrem, L.S. (8); e Agustin-Lacruz, Ma del C. sao os autores mais produtivos, evidenciando dominio dos pesquisadores brasileiros e espanois. Dentre os autores mais citados, destacam-se: Dalhberg, I. (39); Hjorland, B. (35); Campos, M. L. de A. (17); Izquierdo Alonso, M. (16); e Wittgenstein, L. (16), fazendo parte da lista autores advindos de diversas instituicoes, tais como, Brasil, Estados Unidos, Espanha, Canada, Dinamarca, Alemanha, Franca, Reino Unido, Australia, Austria, Belgica, India, Portugal, Russia, Suica, Tunisia e Uruguai. Por fim, nota-se que os pesquisadores Guimaraes, J.A.C.; Lara, M.L.G.; Moreiro Gonzalez, J.A.; e Rodriguez Bravo, B. apareceram tanto na Elite de Pesquisa como na Frente de Pesquisa. Isso indica que esses pesquisadores contribuem, efetivamente, para a consignacao de elementos teoricos-metodologicos que fundamentam o dominio da Organizacao do Conhecimento e propoem procedimentos para compreender o dominio em questao.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".