Women and key positions in scientific collaboration networks: analyzing central scientists’ profiles in the artificial intelligence ecosystem through a gender lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scientific collaboration in almost every discipline is mainly driven by the need of sharing knowledge, expertise, and pooled resources. Science is becoming more complex which has encouraged scientists to involve more in collaborative research projects in order to better address the challenges. As a highly interdisciplinary field with a rapidly evolving scientific landscape, artificial intelligence calls for researchers with special profiles covering a diverse set of skills and expertise. Understanding gender aspects of scientific collaboration is of paramount importance, especially in a field such as artificial intelligence that has been attracting large investments. Using social network analysis, natural language processing, and machine learning and focusing on artificial intelligence publications for the period from 2000 to 2019, in this work, we comprehensively investigated the effects of several driving factors on acquiring key positions in scientific collaboration networks through a gender lens. It was found that, regardless of gender, scientific performance in terms of quantity and impact plays a crucial part in possessing the “social researcher” role in the network. However, subtle differences were observed between female and male researchers in acquiring the “local influencer” role.
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 | 0.077 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.118 | 0.674 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".