MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distribution of first name and last name frequencies by country

2023· dataset· en· W4394387760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mike Thelwall

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrect nameDistribution (mathematics)GenealogyGeographyHistoryMathematicsGeologyPaleontologyMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distribution of first and last name frequencies of academic authors by country. Spreadsheet contains 50 countries, with names based on affiliations in Scopus journal articles 2001-2021. From the paper: Can national researcher mobility be tracked by first or last name uniqueness? For example the distribution for the UK shows a single peak for international names, with no national names, Belgium has a national peak and an international peak, and China has mainly a national peak. The 50 countries are: No Code Country 1 SB Serbia 2 IE Ireland 3 HU Hungary 4 CL Chile 5 CO Columbia 6 NG Nigeria 7 HK Hong Kong 8 AR Argentina 9 SG Singapore 10 NZ New Zealand 11 PK Pakistan 12 TH Thailand 13 UA Ukraine 14 SA Saudi Arabia 15 RO Israel 16 ID Indonesia 17 IL Israel 18 MY Malaysia 19 DK Denmark 20 CZ Czech Republic 21 ZA South Africa 22 AT Austria 23 FI Finland 24 PT Portugal 25 GR Greece 26 NO Norway 27 EG Egypt 28 MX Mexico 29 BE Belgium 30 CH Switzerland 31 SW Sweden 32 PL Poland 33 TW Taiwan 34 NL Netherlands 35 TK Turkey 36 IR Iran 37 RU Russia 38 AU Australia 39 BR Brazil 40 KR South Korea 41 ES Spain 42 CA Canada 43 IT France 44 FR France 45 IN India 46 DE Germany 47 US USA 48 UK UK 49 JP Japan 50 CN 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.024
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.078

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueFigshareSame topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207