Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study uncovers significant findings.The University of Toronto emerges as the leading academic institution with 19,960 publications, followed by the University of British Columbia (11,658) and Université McGill (9,123).. Engineering and Medicine emerged as the top disciplines, with notable collaborative efforts in interdisciplinary research and Environmental Science.I attempted to replicate the exercise using the Scopus database and can confirm the obtained results.However, I have a few minor observations.Firstly, it's crucial to document the date when the data was extracted from the database.For instance, on May 10, 2024, I obtained a result of 130,621 publications.Secondly, it's advisable to wait until June 2024 to ensure that publications from the previous year (in this case, 2023) are fully indexed in Scopus before conducting the analysis.Lastly, it's essential for the author to provide references elucidating the bibliometric methodology employed and the indicators utilized in the study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".