MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Citation Trend of Byline and Dateline Articles of “The Guardian”

2020· article· en· W3095929879 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSRELS Journal of Information Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperGuardianCitationAudience measurementPsychologyLibrary scienceMedia studiesAdvertisingPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the paper is to examine the citation pattern of Byline and Dateline articles of “The Guardian” newspaper during 2001-2010. During the study period, there were 5480 records (newspaper articles) with 4101 citations to different scholarly publications indexed in Web of Science up to 31st December 2015.The highest citation of the Guardian newspaper was 1833 (44.70%) during the year 2010, followed by 1004 (24.48%) citations in the year 2009, and the lowest was 22 (0.54%) citations in the year 2001. The study found that there is a gradual increase in citing Byline newspaper articles from 2001 onwards in scholarly publications, except in the year 2004,whereas, there is a gradual increase in Dateline newspaper articles citations from 2001 onwards. The study also found that the citations do not depend on the readership of the newspaper and there is significant difference in citing the byline and dateline articles in the scholarly publications during 2001-2010.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.027
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.437
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.055 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it