Closed Shop or Collaborative Hub? An Analysis of the Partners' Importance in CANZUK Countries' Research Collaborations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative partners are important in international research collaboration. The research collaborations between four CANZUK countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) are examined to see whether their research connections are different from the research relationships with other countries. This paper measures the affinity index values and analyses the development of research collaborations among CANZUK countries with those between the CANZUK and other countries. The whole counting method and the fractional counting method are applied in this study to compare the differences in the results. The findings show that although the affinity index values of CANZUK countries were decreasing over time, the importance of CANZUK partners to CANZUK countries has likely increased over time at the expense of the other partners' importance. The study also shows the minor differences in results obtained by applying two different counting methods. These differences can be explained by the nature of the counting methods, and the choice to use either one of these two counting methods should be considered in other international research collaboration studies.
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 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 | 0.127 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.190 | 0.762 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".