Communicating Knowledge: How UK Researchers’ Decisions on Where and How to Disseminate their Research Results is Affected by Both the Changing Technological Environment and Research Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents evidence gathered via a research project undertaken by Manchester Metropolitan and Loughborough Universities during 2009. Data was gathered using bibliometric analysis, focus groups, interviews and an online survey. It presents a current view of how researchers communicate their work across the range of disciplines in the UK.Cette communication présente les résultats d'un projet de recherche entrepris conjointement par les universités Manchester Metropolitan et Loughborough en 2009. Les données ont été recueillies au moyen d'analyses de bibliométrie, de groupes de discussion, d'entrevues et d'un sondage en ligne et donnent un portrait actuel de la façon dont les chercheurs de plusieurs disciplines communiquent leurs résultats de recherche au Royaume-Uni.
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 | 0.165 | 0.441 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".