CJK Languages or English: Languages Used by Academic Journals in China, Japan, and Korea
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For this study, we searched academic journal databases and journal lists from China, Japan, and Korea, dating up to July 2018, to determine the percentage of domestic journals published in English in these three East Asian countries. This study differs from most previous studies that relied on article indexes and abstracts for determining the language of academic journals. We took advantage of the full-text searching capabilities that online journal archives allow. We found that journals labelled ‘English-Japanese mixed’ or ‘Korean and English’ typically have only English metadata and not English articles and that the vast majority of domestic journals in China, Japan, and Korea are still published in the national language with no English full text. Due to China’s fast development and its low percentage of English journals, the world may experience, for the first time in nearly a century, a decrease in the worldwide percentage of active academic journals published in the English language.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it