Community participation in the Latin American context: Bibliometric Analysis
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.
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 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.058 | 0.097 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".