MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413024604 · doi:10.1002/asi.70013

Understanding discrepancies in the coverage of <scp>OpenAlex</scp> : The case of China

2025· article· en· W4413024604 on OpenAlexafffund
Mengxue Zheng, Lili Miao, Yi Bu, Vincent Larivière

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalBureau de Coopération InteruniversitaireUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du QuébecChina Scholarship CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChinaComputer scienceData scienceInformation retrievalGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Citations indexes play a crucial role for understanding how science is produced, disseminated, and used. However, these databases often face a critical trade‐off: those offering extensive and high‐quality coverage are typically proprietary, whereas publicly accessible datasets frequently exhibit fragmented coverage and inconsistent data quality. OpenAlex was developed to address this challenge, providing a freely available database with broad open coverage, with a particular emphasis on non‐English speaking countries. Yet, few studies have assessed the quality of the OpenAlex dataset. This paper assesses the coverage by OpenAlex of China's papers, which shows an abnormal trend, and compares it with other countries that do not have English as their main language. Our analysis reveals that while OpenAlex increases the coverage of China's publications, primarily those disseminated by a national database, this coverage is incomplete and discontinuous when compared to other countries' records in the database. We observe similar issues in other non‐English‐speaking countries, with coverage varying across regions. These findings indicate that although OpenAlex expands coverage of research outputs, continuity issues persist and disproportionately affect certain countries. We emphasize the need for researchers to use OpenAlex data cautiously, being mindful of its potential limitations in cross‐national analyses.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometricsMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0160.084
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

BibliometricsMetaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207