MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989385916 · doi:10.1111/ecin.12860

CITATIONS AND INCENTIVES IN ACADEMIC CONTESTS

2019· article· en· W2989385916 on OpenAlexaff
J. Atsu Amegashie

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTIncentiveIndex (typography)EconomicsQuality (philosophy)CitationMicroeconomicsRent-seekingMathematical economicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I consider a contest between scholars on the basis of three popular indices of citation. There exist equilibria in which there are more and better‐quality papers in the total citations contest than in the h‐index contest. In some cases, the total citations contest yields the same quality of papers but more papers than the Euclidean contest. As the cost of writing a paper increases,the h‐index is inferior to the total citations index in both the quality and quantity of papers. This result is partly driven by how the number of papers constrains how the h‐index counts citations. (JEL D72)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.674
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.064 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic InquirySame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207