Highly Cited in the South: International Collaboration and Research Recognition Among Brazil’s Highly Cited Researchers
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 researchers in the global South, international recognition in science arguably involves engaging with the norms, ideas, and people leading research activity in the global North. This article explores the relationship between international research collaboration and the publication activity of highly cited researchers in Brazil, a country that exerts regional leadership in scientific production in Latin America, but remains relatively peripheral to global science. This study examined the career trajectories and publication patterns of highly cited researchers based in Brazilian universities, using Web of Science and CV data. Our findings show a pattern of international mobility among the Brazilian highly cited researchers from the early stages of their careers. With few exceptions, engagement with the academic Anglosphere is central to their achievement of highly cited status, which is derived from co-authored publications with collaborators from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia in large teams.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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