La colaboración científica y la internacionalización de la ciencia mexicana de 1980 a 2004 International scientific collaboration and recognition of Mexican science from 1980 to 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo presenta un análisis de las publicaciones registradas en las bases de datos Science Citation Index (SCI) en el periodo 1980-2004, y Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) de 1997-2004, para determinar el nivel de internacionalización que sostiene la ciencia mexicana, tomando como aspecto básico de estudio la colaboración científica establecida con otras instituciones, países y disciplinas científicas. El trabajo se apoya en el método bibliométrico y el análisis de redes de coautoría utilizando como herramienta base el software Pajek. De acuerdo con los resultados, México mantiene colaboración internacional desde los primeros años del estudio, aunque con menos intensidad durante los 80 y primera mitad de los 90, donde predomina la práctica de investigación en autoría única que está representada por el 40% del total de la producción. Es a partir de la segunda mitad de la década de los años noventa cuando México se integra con mayor fuerza a la colaboración internacional a través de 4,000 distintas instituciones procedentes de 143 diferentes países. El análisis de redes demuestra que es con Estados Unidos de América (EUA) con el que se logra una mayor colaboración científica, al igual que con Canadá e Inglaterra, lo anterior de acuerdo con las medidas de centralidad por grado, cercanía e intermediación. Finalmente, por el número de trabajos en cooperación, nuevamente destacan Estados Unidos, Canadá, Inglaterra, así como Italia, Alemania, Argentina, Cuba y Brasil. This paper presents an analysis of publications recorded in the Science Citation Index (SCI) databases from 1980 to 2004, and in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) databases from 1997 to 2004. In order to establish the level of international recognition of the Mexican science, we define in our study the basic aspects of the scientific collaboration with other institutions, countries and disciplines. This work is supported by the bibliometric method and co-authorship network analysis using Pajek software. In these results, Mexico has performed an international collaboration from the early years of the study, although with less intensity during the 80's and the first half of the 90's. I.e., during this period, the publishing schema has been dominated by the practice of research in single authorship, as evidenced by the fact that 40% of the total production was released without collaboration. In the second half of the 90's Mexico shows a stronger international collaboration through 4,000 different institutions from 143 different countries. The network analysis proves that Mexican collaboration with USA has the largest share, followed by those with Canada and England, in terms of the centrality measures of academic degree, proximity and mediators. Finally, according to the number of joint publications recorded in our study, the Mexican international collaboration is highlighted with United States, Canada, England, as well as with Italy, Germany, Argentina, Cuba and Brazil.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".