MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912412685 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4550439

Analysis of Earth Science Research Output: A Scientometric Study

2020· article· en· W6912412685 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicScientific Research and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of scienceEarth observationScientometricsEarth system scienceCore (optical fiber)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, few studies have attempted to make a comprehensive and quantitative review on this topic. This study conducted a scientometric review on the Earth Science research from 2015 to 2019 using HistCite. Totally 4200 articles from the Web of Science core collection database were selected as the research samples. Our result show that The highest publication output in the year of 2019 with 1026 records (24.43%) and lowest publications founded in the year of 2016 with 685 (16.31%) publications. The most vital development in Earth Science research occurred in the USA, China, England, Canada and Germany. We are Suggest special strengthening in building international partnerships since cooperation occurs in most countries. International cooperation can improve research performance and in the end it leads to better exploitation.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.074
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.208 · 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