<i>Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences</i>: A Retrospective Review Using Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study offers a retrospective review of the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (CJAS). Using bibliometric analysis, we analyze the performance (productivity, impact) and intellectual structure (major themes) of CJAS. We find that CJAS has grown in terms of its publications (productivity) and citations (impact), with a majority of its publications coming from Canada and its content being cited by many high‐quality management outlets. We also discover 10 major themes in the intellectual structure of CJAS, which include customer behaviour and organizational strategy; financial and information management; organizational ethics and legitimacy; corporate governance and risk management; organizational behaviour, growth, and development; external environment and organizational responses; organizational capabilities, resources, and performance; leadership and human resource management; international business and operations; and innovation, networks, and technology. Noteworthily, the journal's collaboration network has globally expanded and its thematic diversity has increased over time.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.067 | 0.200 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".