Ageing Knowledge Structure in Global River Basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the historical evolution of science development for rethinking science in the Anthropocene is crucial for our future survival. This paper analyzed the knowledge development of the top 95 most researched river basins in the Web of Science database in the past 3 decades (1987–2017) using a network metric-based framework, comprising one scalar metric and three structural metrics: equality, efficiency, and resilience. We found that the highly researched river basins accounting about 30% of total publications, including the Yangtze River and the Great Lakes, demonstrated the “ageing” knowledge structures characterized by high inequality, low efficiency, and large redundancy with continuous expansion in scales. Dominations of knowledge interactions among Environmental Sciences, Water Resources, Marine Science and Freshwater Biology contributed to this knowledge structure. Transformations of both the composition and structure of the knowledge system is required to support global river basin management in the Anthropocene.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".