MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380364391 · doi:10.3176/earth.2023.56

Ordovician scientometrics

2023· article· en· W4380364391 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alysson Mazoni, Rodrigo Costas, Carolina Zabini

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences Geology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdovicianScientometricsPaleontologyGeologyComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientometrics is a tool for studying the development of science to observe and analyse patterns that emerge from it. Our aim is to elucidate how the Ordovician has been studied through the years, through the perspective of the published papers, the main topics related to it and how researchers have collaborated along the years, studying Ordovician rocks. The proposition of a new System ‘between’ the Cambrian and Silurian rocks was made by Charles Lapworth, researcher at University of Birmingham, by 1879. Only by 1988 the Tremadocian rocks were recognized as Ordovician (and not Cambrian) by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). This work uses the OpenAlex database, which contains most of the scholarly information available with metadata of a larger portion of published material in several forms and includes records into that period. In its comprehensiveness, it competes with commercial databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science and Scopus. For all the analysis, we have used a version of OpenAlex included in the Google BigQuery platform available through a public link. The scientometric analysis starts by filtering the papers from the database containing the word ‘ordovician’ in their titles or abstracts (when available). That selection resulted in 30259 works with publication years ranging from 1871 to 2022. There is a nearly quadratic growth with oscillations starting at 1 and a peak of 1090 works in the year 2009. As the next step, using information about co-authorship of papers, it is possible to collect the information on author affiliations. This way we establish connections among the institutions in a network. The network reveals that geographically close institutions tend to be more collaborative within one time period. Chinese institutions are closely connected such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences and China University of Geology. Another group is English speaking countries outside the United States such as the Australian National University and British Geological Survey. There are two large groups that interconnect these first two groups: European and North American institutions represented by the largest – Lund University, National History Museum, Uppsala University. These institutions appear foremost when filtering the network for more than 200 connections (co-authored papers). Going into further detail, one can see a network with over 100 connections showing Chinese Oil Research Institutions closely linked to their universities. Also, the Chinese institutions connect directly to the European institutions such as Czech Geological Survey and University of Bergen. British universities such as Bristol, Leicester and Durham further serve as a connection point be­tween North America and Europe. When the connections are split into 30-year time periods, it is possible to note the geographical growth in the Ordovician studies, spreading from traditional centres of knowledge into areas where new universities and institutes are created. In the first two periods of three decades, institutions present no connections. Starting from 1933 to 1962, three of them appear collaborating: Florida State University, Rice University and Shell Oil. In the period from 1963 to 1992, 412 institutions were connected. For that period, the United States Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences come out as hubs of collaboration. In the last period, 1978 institutions are connected. Recent years show a significant presence of Ordovician studies linked to the oil industry, to the point that, when connected to the higher productivity, oil research institutes dominate the network of connections in the Chinese hub, now linked together around the Chinese University of Geosciences. The British Geological Survey is the most important focal point between Europe, through the National University of Córdoba, and North America, through the Ohio State University.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0700.465
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0110.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.519
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.034 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences GeologySame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207