The ecosystem of peatland research: a bibliometric analysis
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
(1) Peatlands provide a range of services to societies, such as sequestration of organic carbon, biodiversity protection, attenuation of water flow, and the provision of fuel, wood and fruit, among others. Despite their global importance, no study has yet characterised peatland research on a global scale. This study aims at providing a better understanding of the geographical distribution of peatland research, of its variations through time, and of the specific topics studied. (2) Results show that peatland research has, between 1991 and 2017, become increasingly international and diversified, with more countries and study sites active, and an increase in foreign sites studied. We do observe, however, that the general vast peatland regions of the world showed relatively distinct profiles in terms of topics which, in most cases, are related to their geographical features. (3) Peatland research has a spatial imbalance in favour of central Europe, with studies in Africa and Brazil highly under-represented in relation to their area, and those in western and eastern Siberia moderately under-represented. We also observe some topics have become increasingly studied during recent decades, e.g. climate change, fire, restoration and carbon, while others have been decreasingly studied, such as botany, nitrogen and coal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it