MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912977760 · doi:10.1177/0739456x19827083

Why Do Some Articles in Planning Journals Get Cited More than Others?

2019· article· en· W2912977760 on OpenAlexaff
Mark R. Stevens, Keunhyun Park, Guang Tian, Keuntae Kim, Reid Ewing

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationCitation analysisComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The planning literature has taken a recent interest in journal article citation counts, which are often used to measure the scholarly impact of articles, authors, or university departments. However, little is known about the factors that determine citation counts for planning-related articles. We find that citation counts in planning vary across planning topics and are also influenced by other journal, author, and article-related factors. We provide recommendations to planning researchers for increasing the impact of their research, and advise consumers of citation counts in planning to consider making particular adjustments to the counts to make them more meaningful.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0640.046
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.631
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.019 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Planning Education and ResearchSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207