MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226265987 · doi:10.1257/pandp.20221063

Ranking and Selection from Pairwise Comparisons: Empirical Bayes Methods for Citation Analysis

2022· article· en· W4226265987 on OpenAlexaff
Jiaying Gu, Roger Koenker

Bibliographic record

VenueAEA Papers and Proceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonRanking (information retrieval)Bayes' theoremNonparametric statisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)CitationStatisticsComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsInformation retrievalBayesian probabilityMachine learningLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, Stigler's (1994) model of citation flows among journals adapted to the pairwise comparison model of Bradley and Terry (1952) is employed to do ranking and selection of journal influence based on nonparametric empirical Bayes methods. Comparisons with several other ranking are also made.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.193
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.193
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.553
GPT teacher head0.608
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAEA Papers and ProceedingsSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207