Publish or impoverish
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Scholarly communication
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.808
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.065 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China and reveal its trend since the late 1990s. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on the analysis of 168 university documents regarding the cash-per-publication reward policy at 100 Chinese universities. Findings Chinese universities offer cash rewards from USD30 to USD165,000 for papers published in journals indexed by Web of Science, and the average reward amount has been increasing for the past ten years. Originality/value The cash-per-publication reward policy in China has never been systematically studied and investigated before except for in some case studies. This is the first paper that reveals the landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Aslib Journal of Information Management
- Topic
- scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- McGill University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PublicationChinaCashOriginalityBibliometricsValue (mathematics)Web of scienceBusinessLibrary scienceEconomicsMarketingRegional scienceGeographyPolitical scienceSocial scienceAdvertisingSociologyFinanceComputer scienceLaw
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes