The ecosystem of peatland research: a bibliometric analysis
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.153 | 0.209 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".