Rediscovering Forgotten Research: Sleeping Beauties at the University of Waterloo
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
An academic article is normally cited within a few years of publication, after which interest falls off as the research field moves on. However, an article is sometimes ignored for many years only to attract interest after a long period of dormancy. Such articles are called "Sleeping Beauties." A general characterization of this pattern has recently been defined and is used in this study to identify five Sleeping Beauties that were published by researchers at the University of Waterloo in the 1970s and 1980s. While a handful of studies have examined the occurrence of such Sleeping Beauties in specific fields of research or in a particular journal, none has yet identified these unusual articles in the context of the lasting impact of a university's research. This study is therefore a novel application of the latest technique for identifying Sleeping Beauties. The possibilities for using this unusual citation pattern in raising the profile of a university's research are discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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