Macro-level collaboration network analysis and visualization with Essential Science Indicators: A case of social science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-national collaboration has been shaped by internationalization of scientific relationships. To study the synergic network of high quality research patterns, this paper collects a total of 300 top 50 items, in each indicator from the big database, Essential Science Indicators, which lists top-ranking papers, scientists and institutions from 2005 to 2015. First, the country level relations of co-authorship addresses in five indicator variables are extracted in the field of social sciences to build international collaboration networks. The social network analysis (SNA) method was applied to calculate the metrics of vertices, edges, average degree, average shortest path, diameter, clustering coefficient and betweenness centrality to illuminate the structural characters and collaboration patterns. Based on the international collaboration similarities, this paper also visualizes the endemic clustering groups of six networks, as cluster dendrograms, using Hierarchical Clustering (HC) method. Findings illustrate that USA, England and Canada are outstanding countries in the international collaboration networks of five indicators. There are geographical groups in European countries in the collaboration networks of scientists, institutes and countries/territories. It is also found that international collaboration contributes to both highly cited papers in the recent 10 years and hot papers in the recent 2 years in this field, rather than geographical similarity does. Those conclusions are critical for policy makers to produce guidelines on how to encourage researchers to build collaboration networks with high-level scholars in different countries
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".