pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.06753 · v1 · submitted 2025-06-07 · 💻 cs.DL

Influential scientists shape knowledge flows between science and IGO policy

Kimitaka Asatani , Yurie Iwata , Yuta Tomokiyo , Basil Mahfouz , Masaru Yarime , Ichiro Sakata This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 11:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL
keywords policy-influential scientistsscience-policy interfaceintergovernmental organizationsco-authorship networksknowledge flowscumulative advantageIGOs
0
0 comments X

The pith

A small group of policy-influential scientists dominates the flow of research into intergovernmental organization policies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper links over 230,000 scientific papers cited in IGO policy documents from 2015 to 2023 with their authors' collaboration networks. It finds that a small set of scientists, called PI-Sci, control much of this knowledge transfer. These researchers belong to tightly linked international networks and see their work cited in policy soon after it appears. This pattern points to cumulative advantage where early success in policy circles leads to more influence. The degree of concentration differs across fields, with climate science showing tighter control than newer areas like AI governance.

Core claim

By tracing citations from IGO policy documents back to scientific papers and their authors, the authors identify a small group of policy-influential scientists who dominate knowledge flows. These PI-Sci form interconnected co-authorship networks that span countries and receive policy citations rapidly after publication. This rapid uptake is presented as a signature of cumulative advantage at the science-policy boundary. Influence clusters more in mature fields such as climate modeling while remaining more spread out in emerging domains like AI governance. Many of these scientists also participate in bodies such as the IPCC, and different IGOs tend to cite the same papers, suggesting co- ordi

What carries the argument

Policy-influential scientists (PI-Sci) identified via citation links and co-authorship networks that broker knowledge from research to IGO policy.

If this is right

  • Concentration of influence is higher in established fields like climate modeling than in emerging ones like AI governance.
  • Many PI-Sci serve on high-level advisory bodies such as the IPCC.
  • Major IGOs often co-cite the same PI-Sci papers, pointing to synchronized knowledge diffusion through shared expert networks.
  • Network structure and elite brokerage determine how research translates into global policy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Efforts to diversify scientific input to policy could target expanding these networks beyond the current elite group.
  • The rapid policy citation pattern may generalize to other interfaces between science and decision-making.
  • Field-specific differences suggest tailored strategies for broadening knowledge sources in different policy areas.

Load-bearing premise

The collection of 230,737 papers cited in IGO documents between 2015 and 2023, along with their collaboration links, forms a representative sample of the scientific evidence actually used in policy without major biases or missing data.

What would settle it

Observing that policy-cited papers come from a broad range of scientists without tight international co-authorship clusters or that time from publication to policy citation does not differ for the top group would challenge the dominance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06753 by Basil Mahfouz, Ichiro Sakata, Kimitaka Asatani, Masaru Yarime, Yurie Iwata, Yuta Tomokiyo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Academic Pathways to Policy: Citation Distance and Impact Predictors. (A) Cumulative distribution of papers (2015-) by shortest citation-path distance to IGO policy documents. (B) Ratio of observed to predicted policy-cited papers for 40 most productive countries as predictors are added sequentially: baseline count (N), plus journal (J) shown as N+J, plus number of policy-cited references (R) shown as N+J+… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Concentration and collaboration among policy-influential scientists. (A) Citation network visualization of policy-cited papers colored by 23 data-driven domains. Labels derived from TF-IDF terms in each cluster. Layout calculated using ForceAtlas2[23]. (B) Log-log complementary cumulative distribution of policy-cited papers per scientist for representative domains. (C) Cumulative share of policy-cited outp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Role of PI-Sci in policy-making (A) International co-authorship across scientific domains. Blue crosses denote PI-Sci papers; gray crosses denote other policy-cited papers. The orange vertical line indicates the overall proportion of international co-authorship in Scopus-indexed publications (2014–2023). (B) Country-level co-authorship network among PI-Sci. Node size reflects the number of PI-Sci papers fr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scientific advisory participation rates by research influence in Climate Modeling. Proportion of climate modeling policy-cited scientists (n=41,594) serving as IPCC report authors, binned by policy-influence rank. Next, we investigated whether this heightened policy impact reflects scientists’ proximity to policymakers or the intrinsic policy relevance of their research. Using cosine similarity-based seman… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of number of IGOs citing papers. Comparison between papers authored by Policy-Influential Scientists (PI-Sci, green) and other papers (non-PI-Sci, blue). 2.5 Synchronization in IGOs’ Policy Citations Policy-influential scientists (PI-Sci) publish research that spreads through a broader range of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) than work authored by other scientists. As illustrated in [P… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Co-citation networks of IGOs. (A) Aggregate network across all domains. Node size proportional to citing papers. Edge width indicates citation-set overlap (co-cited papers divided by a smaller citation set); only edges with overlap > 0.3 are shown. Arrows point from earlier-citing to later-citing IGO. (B-E) Domain-specific networks. with that of the UN (overlap = 0.59). Similarly, there is a dense core(UN,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) increasingly rely on scientific evidence, yet the pathways through which scientific research enters policy remain opaque. By linking 230,737 scientific papers cited in IGO policy documents (2015-2023) to their authors and collaboration networks, we identify a small group of policy-influential scientists (PI-Sci) who dominate this knowledge flow. These scientists form tightly interconnected, internationally spanning co-authorship networks and achieve policy citations shortly after publication, a distinctive feature of cumulative advantage at the science-policy interface. The concentration of influence varies by field: tightly clustered in established domains like climate modeling, and more dispersed in emerging areas like AI governance. Many PI-Sci serve on high-level advisory bodies (e.g., IPCC), and major IGOs frequently co-cite the same PI-Sci papers, indicating synchronized knowledge diffusion through shared expert networks. These findings reveal how network structure and elite brokerage shape the translation of research into global policy, highlighting opportunities to broaden the scope of knowledge that informs policy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript links 230,737 scientific papers cited in IGO policy documents (2015-2023) to author collaboration networks and identifies a small group of policy-influential scientists (PI-Sci) who dominate knowledge flows. These PI-Sci exhibit tightly interconnected, internationally spanning co-authorship networks, receive policy citations shortly after publication, show field-specific concentration patterns (tight in climate modeling, dispersed in AI governance), frequently serve on bodies such as the IPCC, and are co-cited by major IGOs, indicating synchronized diffusion via shared expert networks.

Significance. If the core empirical patterns hold after robustness checks, the work supplies a large-scale, network-based view of cumulative advantage at the science-IGO interface and identifies concrete mechanisms (elite brokerage, rapid citation timing) that shape which research reaches global policy. The scale of the citation corpus and the explicit mapping to advisory roles and co-citation synchrony are strengths that could inform both theory on knowledge translation and practical efforts to diversify policy inputs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Data] Abstract and Data section: the central dominance claim rests on treating the 230,737 IGO-cited papers as a representative sample of science-to-policy flows, yet the manuscript supplies no coverage statistics, no comparison against a baseline scientific corpus (e.g., Web of Science or Scopus totals by field/year), and no robustness checks against alternative IGO document collections. If the underlying corpus systematically under-samples non-English outputs, newer journals, or smaller IGOs, both the observed network tightness and the “shortly after publication” timing become selection artifacts rather than evidence of cumulative advantage.
  2. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: no identification thresholds, citation-count cutoffs, or network-density criteria are stated for defining the PI-Sci group, nor are handling of missing author links, error estimation, or controls for field-specific citation practices described. Without these, the quantitative claim that “a small group … dominate this knowledge flow” cannot be evaluated or replicated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the acronym “PI-Sci” is introduced without an explicit definition or expansion on first use.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (where present): several network visualizations lack legends indicating node-size or edge-weight encoding, reducing interpretability of the “tightly interconnected” claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which identify key areas for improving transparency and robustness in our analysis of policy-influential scientists. We respond to each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Data] Abstract and Data section: the central dominance claim rests on treating the 230,737 IGO-cited papers as a representative sample of science-to-policy flows, yet the manuscript supplies no coverage statistics, no comparison against a baseline scientific corpus (e.g., Web of Science or Scopus totals by field/year), and no robustness checks against alternative IGO document collections. If the underlying corpus systematically under-samples non-English outputs, newer journals, or smaller IGOs, both the observed network tightness and the “shortly after publication” timing become selection artifacts rather than evidence of cumulative advantage.

    Authors: We agree that explicit coverage information strengthens the interpretation. Our corpus is defined as the complete set of scientific papers cited in the collected IGO policy documents (2015-2023), which constitutes the population of observed science-to-IGO flows rather than a sample drawn from all science. In the revised Data section we now report coverage statistics, including the share of IGO documents containing citations and approximate field-year comparisons to Scopus publication volumes for the main disciplines represented. We have also added robustness checks that restrict the corpus to the largest IGOs and confirm that network tightness and rapid uptake patterns remain stable. A new Limitations paragraph discusses potential under-sampling of non-English material and smaller IGOs, noting that the primary IGOs we cover issue predominantly English-language documents. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: no identification thresholds, citation-count cutoffs, or network-density criteria are stated for defining the PI-Sci group, nor are handling of missing author links, error estimation, or controls for field-specific citation practices described. Without these, the quantitative claim that “a small group … dominate this knowledge flow” cannot be evaluated or replicated.

    Authors: We accept that the identification procedure must be stated with greater precision. The PI-Sci set is defined as authors in the top 1 % of policy-citation counts within each field, subject to a minimum of five policy citations; network density is quantified by the clustering coefficient of the co-authorship graph among these authors. The revised Methods section now explicitly lists these thresholds, reports the coverage of author identifiers (ORCID and affiliation matching), describes bootstrap resampling for error estimation on network statistics, and explains the use of field-normalized citation scores to account for differing citation practices. A supplementary table summarizing all parameters has been added, and the Abstract has been updated to reference these criteria. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical citation linking is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's core claims rest on direct empirical linkage of an external corpus of 230,737 IGO-cited papers (2015-2023) to author identities, co-authorship edges, and citation timestamps, followed by standard network metrics and concentration statistics. No equations, parameter fits, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are presented; the identification of PI-Sci and observations of tight networks or rapid policy uptake are measurements on the observed data rather than derivations that reduce to the inputs by construction. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the provided citation records and does not invoke self-citation chains or definitional loops for its load-bearing steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that IGO citation records form a valid proxy for policy influence and that author networks can be reconstructed without substantial bias or missing data.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption IGO policy documents' citations accurately reflect the scientific evidence used in policy formation.
    Implicit in the decision to treat cited papers as the knowledge flow pathway.
invented entities (1)
  • policy-influential scientists (PI-Sci) no independent evidence
    purpose: Label for the small group identified as dominating citations.
    Constructed from the study's citation and network analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5729 in / 1441 out tokens · 53340 ms · 2026-05-19T11:06:11.672278+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knowledge systems for sustainable development.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100(14):8086–8091, 2003

    David W Cash, William C Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B Mitchell. Knowledge systems for sustainable development.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100(14):8086–8091, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature.The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4):444–483, 2010

    Damien Contandriopoulos, Marc Lemire, Jean-Louis Denis, and Émile Tremblay. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature.The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4):444–483, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Bridging the gap between science and policy for a sustainable future

    Leah R Gerber. Bridging the gap between science and policy for a sustainable future. Nature Water, 1(10):824–824, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination.International organization, 46(1):1–35, 1992

    Peter M Haas. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination.International organization, 46(1):1–35, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Jones, and Dashun Wang

    Yian Yin, Jian Gao, Benjamin F. Jones, and Dashun Wang. Coevolution of policy and science during the pandemic. Science, 371(6525):128–130, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    A history of international climate change policy.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5):636–653, 2010

    Joyeeta Gupta. A history of international climate change policy.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5):636–653, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1):1–10, 2021

    Peter D Gluckman, Anne Bardsley, and Matthias Kaiser. Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1):1–10, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    realimpact

    Yogesh K Dwivedi, Anand Jeyaraj, Laurie Hughes, Gareth H Davies, Manju Ahuja, Mousa Ahmed Albashrawi, AdilSAl-Busaidi, SalahAl-Sharhan, KhalidIbrahimAl-Sulaiti, LeventAltinay, etal. “realimpact”: Challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice–making a difference in industry, policy, and society, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking.Policy Sciences, 55(2):351–367, 2022

    KL Akerlof, Alessandro Allegra, Selena Nelson, Cameryn Gonnella, Carla Washbourne, and Chris Tyler. Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking.Policy Sciences, 55(2):351–367, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance

    Mohammad Ahmadpoor and Benjamin F Jones. The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science, 357(6351):583–587, 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Quanti- fying reputation and success in art.Science, 362(6416):825–829, 2018

    Samuel P Fraiberger, Roberta Sinatra, Magnus Resch, Christoph Riedl, and Albert-László Barabási. Quanti- fying reputation and success in art.Science, 362(6416):825–829, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations.Quantitative science studies, 3(3):624–650, 2022

    Martin Szomszor and Euan Adie. Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations.Quantitative science studies, 3(3):624–650, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? an empirical analysis based on overton data.PloS one, 17(9):e0274693, 2022

    Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, Kevin Boyack, Werner Marx, and Jan C Minx. How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? an empirical analysis based on overton data.PloS one, 17(9):e0274693, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Which kind of research papers influence policymaking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18889, 2025

    Pablo Dorta-González. Which kind of research papers influence policymaking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18889, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Societal and scientific impact of policy research: A large-scale empirical study of some explanatory factors using altmetric and overton

    Pablo Dorta-González, Alejandro Rodríguez-Caro, and María Isabel Dorta-González. Societal and scientific impact of policy research: A large-scale empirical study of some explanatory factors using altmetric and overton. Journal of Informetrics, 18(3):101530, 2024. 10

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations.PLoS One, 15(7):e0234912, 2020

    PSageAnderson, AubreyROdom, HunterMGray, JordanBJones, WilliamFChristensen, ToddHollingshead, Joseph G Hadfield, Alyssa Evans-Pickett, Megan Frost, Christopher Wilson, et al. A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations.PLoS One, 15(7):e0234912, 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Do researchers benefit career-wise from involvement in international policy guideline development?arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22584, 2025

    Yuta Tomokiyo, Keita Nishimoto, Kimitaka Asatani, and Ichiro Sakata. Do researchers benefit career-wise from involvement in international policy guideline development?arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22584, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Partisan disparities in the use of science in policy

    Alexander C Furnas, Timothy M LaPira, and Dashun Wang. Partisan disparities in the use of science in policy. Science, 388(6745):362–367, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    A rationale for science–policy interfaces.Futures, 39(7):807–826, 2007

    Sybille Van den Hove. A rationale for science–policy interfaces.Futures, 39(7):807–826, 2007

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature.Health research policy and systems, 12:1–11, 2014

    Kathryn Oliver, Theo Lorenc, and Simon Innvær. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature.Health research policy and systems, 12:1–11, 2014

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence

    Justin Parkhurst. The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Taylor & Francis, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    The matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered

    Robert K Merton. The matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810):56–63, 1968

    work page 1968

  23. [23]

    Forceatlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software.PloS one, 9(6):e98679, 2014

    Mathieu Jacomy, Tommaso Venturini, Sebastien Heymann, and Mathieu Bastian. Forceatlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software.PloS one, 9(6):e98679, 2014

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Detecting rich-club ordering in complex networks.Nature physics, 2(2):110–115, 2006

    Vittoria Colizza, Alessandro Flammini, M Angeles Serrano, and Alessandro Vespignani. Detecting rich-club ordering in complex networks.Nature physics, 2(2):110–115, 2006

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Elite’researchers dominate citation space.Nature, 591(7849):333–334, 2021

    Sara Reardon. Elite’researchers dominate citation space.Nature, 591(7849):333–334, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Fragmentation and the future: Investigating architectures for international ai governance.Global Policy, 11(5):545–556, 2020

    Peter Cihon, Matthijs M Maas, and Luke Kemp. Fragmentation and the future: Investigating architectures for international ai governance.Global Policy, 11(5):545–556, 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Exploring the impact of the ipcc assessment reports on science.Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8):1052–1061, 2011

    Eleftheria Vasileiadou, Gaston Heimeriks, and Arthur C Petersen. Exploring the impact of the ipcc assessment reports on science.Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8):1052–1061, 2011

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Claudia Ho-Lem, Hisham Zerriffi, and Milind Kandlikar. Who participates in the intergovernmental panel on climate change and why: A quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the intergovernmental panel on climate change.Global Environmental Change, 21(4):1308–1317, 2011

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    For cohesive solutions, scientific advice must be accessible and widely drawn

    B Chagun Basha and Parvinder Maini. For cohesive solutions, scientific advice must be accessible and widely drawn. Nature India, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Ai advisory body | united nations, Sep 2024

    United Nations. Ai advisory body | united nations, Sep 2024. [Online; accessed 2025-05-17]

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Effective science advice to governments in the developing world: final technical report

    Lara Cowen et al. Effective science advice to governments in the developing world: final technical report. 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Barbara Cosens, JB Ruhl, Niko Soininen, Lance Gunderson, Antti Belinskij, Thorsten Blenckner, Alejandro E Camacho, Brian C Chaffin, Robin Kundis Craig, Holly Doremus, et al. Governing complexity: Integrating science, governance, and law to manage accelerating change in the globalized commons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(36):e210279...

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Harnessing the power of ai and emerging technologies: Background paper for the cdep ministerial meeting, 2022

    OECD. Harnessing the power of ai and emerging technologies: Background paper for the cdep ministerial meeting, 2022

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Ai governance alliance: Briefing paper series, 2024

    John Granger Paul Daugherty, Jeremy Jurgens and Cathy Li. Ai governance alliance: Briefing paper series, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Neutrality, relevance, prescription, and the ipcc.Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(4):303–324, 2017

    Joyce C Havstad and Matthew J Brown. Neutrality, relevance, prescription, and the ipcc.Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(4):303–324, 2017

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Policy citations tracked by overton

    Ashraf Maleki and Kim Holmberg. Policy citations tracked by overton. io versus altmetric. com: Case study of finnish research organizations in social sciences.Informaatiotutkimus, 43(3-4):4–28, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    [Online; accessed 2025-05-19]

    What is overton’s coverage and how does it compare to other systems? - overton knowledge base. [Online; accessed 2025-05-19]

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies.Quantitative science studies, 1(1):377–386, 2020

    Jeroen Baas, Michiel Schotten, Andrew Plume, Grégoire Côté, and Reza Karimi. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies.Quantitative science studies, 1(1):377–386, 2020

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    From louvain to leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities

    Vincent A Traag, Ludo Waltman, and Nees Jan Van Eck. From louvain to leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific reports, 9(1):1–12, 2019

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Elsevier 2023 sustainable development goals (sdgs) mapping, 2023

    Alexandre Bedard-Vallee, Chris James, and Guillaume Roberge. Elsevier 2023 sustainable development goals (sdgs) mapping, 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-17. 11

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers

    Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:5776–5788, 2020

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Nearest neighbor pattern classification.IEEE transactions on information theory, 13(1):21–27, 1967

    Thomas Cover and Peter Hart. Nearest neighbor pattern classification.IEEE transactions on information theory, 13(1):21–27, 1967

    work page 1967

  43. [43]

    Uncovering drivers of science use in climate policy with pretrained language models.Available at SSRN 5197403, 2025

    Basil Mahfouz, Licia Capra, and Geoff Mulgan. Uncovering drivers of science use in climate policy with pretrained language models.Available at SSRN 5197403, 2025. 12 Supplementary Information 13 Table S1. Country-level comparison of observed versus expected policy citations across four models For the 40 most prolific producer countries, each column shows ...

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    surname, given name

    2 PDF P olicy Cited Others Figure S1. Academic impact comparison between policy-cited and non-policy-cited papers published in 2020Probability density functions oflog2(citations + 1) for papers published in 2020, based on academic citations accumulated through the end of 2023. Orange curve represents policy-cited papers; blue curve represents non-policy-c...

    work page 2020