MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158748375 · doi:10.5539/ep.v10n2p1

Global Research Collaboration for Vapour Intrusion

2021· article· en· W3158748375 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeroen Provoost

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Pollution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial network analysisCollaborative networkProductivityIntrusionRegional scienceChinaSocial network (sociolinguistics)Network analysisPolitical scienceEconomic growthKnowledge managementEngineeringComputer scienceGeographyEconomicsWorld Wide WebSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complexity of the vapour intrusion (VI) transport pathway has received an ever-increased interest worldwide, and an improved and consolidated understanding of the VI issue requires collaboration between international research groups. This study uses the social network analysis methodology, applied to bibliometric authorship for VI research, to discover trends in collaboration, identify lead scientists, organisations, and countries. Furthermore, some of the external factors influencing the collaboration and productivity were assessed. The data suggests that the global research network for VI produced over a time span of 54 years 566 publications via 157 sources. The research network is composed of 437 organisations and 1053 authors from 33 countries. This suggests an increasingly active international collaborative research effort. However, inter-continental cooperation is much less than continental. The top five most central countries in the network are the USA, followed by Canada, China, The Netherlands, and Italy. The researchers with the most publications are from these five countries as well as the top organisations. The social network analysis conducted shows a good approximation of the collaborative structure for the key countries, organisations and researchers involved. Since 2010, the research community has become more stable.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and PollutionSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207