MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANÁLISE BIBLIOMÉTRICA SOBRE POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS

2019· article· pt· W2997350076 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fábio Freitas da Silva, Geísa Pereira Marcilio Nogueira, Ítalo de Oliveira Matias, Ludmila Gonçalves da Matta, Aldo Shimoya

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Políticas Públicas · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Public Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of TorontoUniversity of PennsylvaniaYork UniversityConnaught FundUniversity of OxfordHarvard UniversityUniversity of WashingtonColumbia University
KeywordsTimelinePolitical scienceContext (archaeology)HumanitiesTheme (computing)Public policyGeographyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabalho tem como objetivo mostrar a evolução do tema políticas públicas no contexto mundial e nacional por meio de uma análise bibliométrica. Faz um levantamento de indicadores mais gerais na avaliação global, como o histórico temporal das publicações e os países que mais debatem sobre o tema; enquanto na conjuntura brasileira traz indicadores mais específicos, tais como a rede de colaboração do Brasil com outros países e instituições. Os resultados mostraram que a primeira publicação sobre o tema estudado surgiu em 1909, no cenário mundial, e em 1987 no Brasil; os Estados Unidos destacaram-se na pesquisa com maior número de publicações. Apesar do desenvolvimento tardio na área de políticas públicas, o Brasil ocupa o quarto lugar no ranque mundial. Em relação às instituições, a USP concentra o maior volume de trabalhos publicados, no entanto, Estados Unidos ganha no todo.Palavras-chave: Bibliometria. Políticas Públicas. Indicadores.BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICIESAbstractThis work aims at showing the evolution of the public policy theme in a national and worldwide context by means of a bibliometric analysis. More general indicators on the global assessment were proposed, such as the timeline of publications and countries that most debate the theme; while in the Brazilian conjuncture, more specific indicators were generated, such as the partnership network between Brazil and other countries and institutions. The main results showed that the first publication in the world about the theme under study was in 1909, while in Brazil it was in 1987. They also demonstrated thatthe United States stood out relating to the number of publications. Another question was that, despite the late development of the area of public policies, Brazil ranks fourth worldwide. Regarding institutions, Universidade de São Paulo-USP (Sao Paulo University) concentrates the largest amount of published works, however, the United States stands out as a whole.Keywords: Bibliometry. Public Policies. Indexes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1240.256
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Políticas PúblicasSame topicEducation and Public PolicyFrench-language works237,207