Predicting Star Scientists in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Star scientists are highly influential researchers who have made significant contributions to their field, gained widespread recognition, and often attracted substantial research funding. They are critical for the advancement of science and innovation and significantly influence the transfer of knowledge and technology to industry. Identifying potential star scientists before their performance becomes outstanding is important for recruitment, collaboration, networking, and research funding decisions. This study utilizes machine learning techniques and builds four different classifiers, i.e., random forest, support vector machines, naïve bayes, and logistic regression, to predict star scientists in the field of artificial intelligence while highlighting features related to their success. The analysis is based on publication data collected from Scopus from 2000 to 2019, incorporating a diverse set of features such as gender, ethnic diversity, and collaboration network structural properties. The random forest model achieved the best performance with an AUC of 0.75. Our results confirm that star scientists follow different patterns compared to their non-star counterparts in almost all the early-career features. We found that certain features, such as gender and ethnic diversity, play important roles in scientific collaboration and can significantly impact an author’s career development and success. The most important features in predicting star scientists in the field of artificial intelligence were the number of articles, betweenness centrality, research impact indicators, and weighted degree centrality. Our approach offers valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and funding agencies interested in identifying and supporting talented researchers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".