Evaluative Study of Ph. D. LIS Dissertations of Pakistani Library & Information Science Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objectives of the study were to acquire knowledge about the Information Sources used in LIS Doctoral research, to explore the use of impact factor research sources in their research productivity, to find out the used Pakistani journals fall in HEC criteria (W, X, Y, Z), to know the citation style which is mostly used and to know the geographical affiliations of journals and other resources. This research deals with Quantitative research design, in this research. Researchers used statistical methods with help of an excel sheet to check the sources used by Ph.D. researchers. Sources of Journals, books, theses, websites, conference proceedings, newspaper articles, reports, and online databases were evaluated according to Geographical Location, author Pattern (single author, co-authors are multiple authors), chronologically (Decade wise). Findings of the study reveal that 93 Websites were cited having different domains like gov, edu, org, and com. Pakistani websites were mostly used and other counties' websites are also used like USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and India. 56 Conference proceedings were cited, mostly used during the year 2005 to 2014, Conferences were organized in Pakistan and the USA mostly. 8 Newspaper articles were cited from only two countries, 6 articles from Pakistan and 2 from the USA. 103 Reports were cited from different countries mostly used from USA (40.7%), Pakistan (33.9%), and France (4.8%). However, (14.5%) data was used from other different countries, and (4.8%) data not identifying the country. these reports are mostly published from 2004-2013. 10 Online Databases the Library & Information Science Ph.D. Scholars have also used many online databases like Emerald Insight, Elsevier, SAGE Publications, etc. It is observed that the four databases are mostly cited. The database Emerald Insight has been cited the maximum number of times which is covering 49.22% (222) of the total database citations out of 451 database citations. Elsevier database has been placed at 2nd position by 19% (85), SAGE Publications placed at 3rd position 17% (77) and Taylor & Francis Group placed at 4th position 14% (60).
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".