MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correspondence analysis approach to examine the Nobel Prize

2019· article· en· W4253913757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEl Sawah, S. (ed.) MODSIM2019, 23rd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this study is to examine Nobel Prize data by exploring and studying the association between the Country of the nominated individual (or of the nominated team) and the Discipline in which the Nobel Prize was awarded. The sample studied comprises the eight the most developed countries that received at least one Nobel Prize in the period from 1901 to 2018; these being Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, British Isles and the USA. The variables Country and Discipline are cross-classified to form a two-way contingency table. Simple correspondence analysis is performed to explore the nature of the association between these two variables.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEl Sawah, S. (ed.) MODSIM2019, 23rd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation.Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207