A Preliminary Investigation of Research Collaboration Through Scientific Paper Co-authorship in the Gulf of Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that publications with collaborators from external institutions increase citations. This effect scales with spatial distance. There are also many barriers to long-distance collaborations, including linguistic differences, funding constraints, and the incremental costs of remote collaboration. This paper uses the Gulf of Mexico as a case study to examine long-distance research collaboration because it consists of three countries with diverse development levels and two prominent diplomatic languages, within a singular regional ecosystem of tremendous natural and economic value. This paper uses bibliometric network analysis to examine scientific research article co-authorship in the Gulf of Mexico from 2000 to 2018. The results reveal that, although inter-organizational co-authorship has increased, significant fragmentation exists between the U.S.A, Mexico, and Cuba. Large differences in technological and organizational proximity as well as research capacity between US and Mexican states in the Gulf of Mexico may make collaboration more difficult compared to other transboundary settings, such as the US-Canadian border. Centrally located organizations in the network, such as NOAA, have played a prominent role in cross-institutional research, suggesting a capacity to bridge political entities in the Gulf of Mexico.
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 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 | 0.035 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.138 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".