Pattern of Research Collaboration of six Indian Institutes of Technology: A Scientometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study makes an analysis of 72940 papers indexed by Scopus International database and published by six Indian Institutes of Technology during 2006 to 2015 which indicates that scientists of six IITs are more inclined to publish their research papers in collaboration with other countries and international institutions as two third (66.65%) papers of six IITs are internationally collaborated with 459 countries from almost all regions of the World. However the dominant research collaborating countries among them included USA, UK, Germany, Canada, France, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, China, Italy, etc. All the six IITs also published (33.34%) papers collaboration with 355 national institutes within India to publish their papers. The study also indicates that the average value of CC for six institutes is 0.96, which indicates collaborative pattern of six institutes are denoted by co-authored papers than solo authors. It also indicates that the multi and mega-authored papers have notably increased during the second block of 2011-2015 compared to 2006-2010 as CC is 1.03. Among 38 highly collaborative institutions, the highest (Seven) are from USA, and Purdue University, USA had the highest number of internationally collaborated papers with three IITs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".