Community participation in the Latin American context: Bibliometric Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: community participation and outreach constitute one of the key work tools for each science. Despite the existence of previous studies on this topic, it is necessary to have an overview of the current state of knowledgeObjective: characterizes the scientific publications grouped in Scopus regarding community participation in the Latin American contextMethod: A bibliometric study was developed. 5 832 publications were analyzed as the research universe. Bibliometric indicators were applied from the Scopus database and the Scival tool.Results: Articles published in 2022 predominated with 988 investigations (16,94 %). The thematic areas of social sciences stood out (2,639 investigations; 45,25 %). The relationship between the different thematic areas was mostly heterogeneous, with greater participation from the medical sciences. Articles published in research article format stood out with 4,196 investigations, equivalent to 71,94 %. The largest number of articles was published in journals located in quartile 1 (Q1) with 2,407 investigations (41,27 %). The researches with authors from the United States (4 933 articles; 84,58 %) and Canada (885 works; 15,17 %) stood out.Conclusions: scientific production on community participation in the Latin American context was characterized by gradual growth. In turn, in correlation with a heterogeneous behavior of the branches of sciences involved in scientific activity. The center of the research responds to original articles located in the countries with the highest rate of scientific activity
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.282 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it