Understanding the Use of Academic Research in Science Education Practitioner Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bibliometric study investigated the extent to which science education practitioner journals (SEPJs) cite science education research journals and other resources, and in what proportions. The study found that articles in SEPJs rarely cite the leading science education research journals; the average citation rate per article is well below one. This result was not affected by article type and remains stable across 2013 to 2017. While results indicate the article purpose in the SEPJs affected the proportion of science education research journal citations, the proportion remains low with—in the best case—about 8% of all citations in The Science Teacher from 2013 to 2017. The presentation discusses the role of SEPJ authors of different roles/backgrounds in science education and their use of references. Implications for pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development and the translation of research to practice are described.
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 | 0.045 | 0.339 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.060 | 0.066 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".