Citation Trend of Byline and Dateline Articles of “The Guardian”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".