Інституційна структура українського наукового зарубіжжя \n(The Institutional Structure of Ukrainian Foreign Academic Activity)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Автором подано детальну характеристику інституційної структури українського наукового зарубіжжя. Розглянуто запропонований Л. Винарем поділ його на основні категорії: українські наукові установи, що мають власні статути, українські високі школи, українознавчі наукові центри при американських та канадських університетах, професійні організації, що займаються науковою діяльністю та ін. Проаналізовано особливості статутної діяльності українознавчих установ, джерела їх фінансування. Звернуто також увагу на функції та значення координаційного органу українських наукових установ в діаспорі – Світової наукової ради при СКУ. \n(The author presents a detailed description of the institutional structure of the Ukrainian academic activity. The article deals with the classification proposed by L. Vynar according to which the main categories are: Ukrainian research institutions with their own statutes; Ukrainian high schools; Ukrainian research centres in the US and Canadian universities; professional organizations engaged in scientific and scholarly activities and others. The features of statutory activities of Ukrainian institutions and sources of funding are analysed. Moreover,the author pays attention to the function and importance of the coordinating body of Ukrainian research institutions in the Diaspora i.e. the World Scientific Council at UWC.)
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".