Impact of a Fulbright award: A bibliometric analysis of persistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While hundreds of Fulbright awards have been given, little is known about the impact of such engagement despite a goal of increased research partnership and collaboration. Aim: The extent and impact of a Fulbright award was explored by examining referencing of primary collaborative publications. Setting: Seven databases and two alternative sources from 2013 to 2023 were reviewed. Methods: Co-citation analysis identified pairs of referenced articles. Subsequently, a bibliometric approach was used to quantitatively and visually capture and analyse publications using data visualisation software. Results: A search of sources found 773 citations citing the 16 primary works. Following the elimination of duplicates, 273 publications remained. Also examined was the non-scientific downstream noted in social media (n = 66). Based on co-citation analysis, there was a sharp uptick in the utilisation of primary citations (n = 273) compared to a 2019 analysis (n = 42). Journal Impact Factors of citing works had a high of 5.379 from 2.079 in 2019. Primary citations in open access journals demonstrated greater referencing, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated utilisation of some works. Citing works focussed on three clusters: compassion fatigue, birth stories and Ubuntu. Most citing works originated from South Africa and the United States of America and consisted of multidisciplinary investigators with interfacility alliance and team science engagement. Nursing or midwifery were the main disciplines of first authors in citing articles (n = 153). Conclusion: Co-citation analysis and downstream use of publications in social media provided evidence of the impact of a Fulbright award on scholarship with persistence over time. Contributions: Fulbright awards promote collaborative teamwork between disciplines and is of clear benefit to scientists.
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 | MetaresearchBibliometrics Domain: Incentives · 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 | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.865 | 0.973 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".