To (formally) index Western Geography or not? That is the question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To (formally) index Western Geography or not? This is the (discussion) question.The Western Geography 25, 2023 Editorial wrote of the illustrious pedigree and importance of Western Geography and while this Editor stands by this statement, the reality of the 21st century publishing world is challenging for Western Geography.As stated in the Editorial in 2023, there are approximately 51 academic / scholarly journals in human and physical geography in Canada and more than 1000 worldwide.(data from Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, 2024).Researchers and writers have many more choices of where to publish in the 2020s than in 1990 when Western Geography began.Some Researchers and authors commented to yours truly that they would like to publish in Western Geography because of its focus but alas, Western Geography is not indexed, that is, its volumes and contents are not in any commercial publisher literature database (or indexing database).While some web crawlers have crawled and indexed some articles from Western Geography, none of the articles listed in Google Scholar are from the Western Geography site hosted at UVic Department of Geography.Most of Western Geography articles via Google Scholar are from CiteSeer from Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology, ResearchGate.netand Academia.eduand very few that were published after 2018.Although not exactly certain why this is the case, this volume of Western Geography will follow Google Scholar's suggestions https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html and specifically following below https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#indexingwith:• Title(s) with minimum 24 point font,• Author(s) in minimum 16 point font with explicit format Author(s):• and with an Abstract clearly labeled as such so as more likely to be crawled by Google Scholar and the above-mentioned services.
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 | 0.022 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".