standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | scientific coauthorship networks in sociology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | observational-study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: observational-study | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper states it cannot readily explain why Serbian sociologists do not co-author. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper notes that its comparison is between scientific communities of very different sizes, so the author/coauthor distributions are not directly comparable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The field measures a thing it rarely defines: the paper states that very few works define what science collaboration is. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any result about science collaboration networks: the paper states very few works define what science collaboration is, so studies of it need not be studies of the same thing | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The term rests on social convention, and what one researcher counts as collaboration another counts as a loose grouping. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a comparison of collaboration rates between studies or communities: the term is hard to define because it is largely a matter of social conventions between scientists, and what some count as collaboration others would call a loose grouping or informal connection | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Each study narrows the term to one aspect, so the operational definitions differ between the works being compared. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a synthesis across collaboration-network studies: researchers commonly take one aspect only and narrow their operational definitions accordingly, so the definitions differ between the studies being combined | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Citation counts aggregate acts that mean opposite things, including citing to display reading and deliberately not citing a rival. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a citation-based measure of influence: the same count aggregates ceremonial citation, a demonstration of knowing the literature, with diplomatic non-citation, the purposeful omission of authors from a rival group | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | science collaboration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: science collaboration | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | coauthored work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: coauthored work | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | citation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: citation | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | auto citation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auto citation | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | core knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: core knowledge | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| senses | science collaboration - AS AT LEAST ONE SHARED BYLINE: in network analysis the authors are the nodes and a link exists if there is at least one coauthored work, so the relation is binary and carries no degree, duration or division of labour Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | science collaboration - AS A SOCIAL CONVENTION with moving boundaries: what counts is settled between scientists rather than by a criterion, and the paper says the boundary is prone to change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | citation - SEVERAL DIFFERENT ACTS UNDER ONE NAME: bibliographic pairing, co-citation, direct, symbolic, negative, diplomatic and auto citation, which a count cannot tell apart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Moody (2004), The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | science collaboration —operationalised-as→ coauthored work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: the previous sentences name 'science collaboration networks' built on coauthorship. also in: science collaboration · coauthored work | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | auto citation —is-a→ citation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: auto citation · citation | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | proportion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proportion | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | frequency distribution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frequency distribution | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Single-authored works make up 89.1% of the published texts and coauthored works only 10.9%. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Among the coauthored papers, collaboration between colleagues in the same institution is twice as frequent as collaboration across institutions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors conclude from these frequencies that coauthorship networks among Serbian sociologists are underdeveloped. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Serbian sociologists at the start of the 21st century collaborated three times less than the sociologists in Moody's international data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Using Moody's methodology, Kronegger and colleagues found different network structures among sociologists. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | None of the study programmes has a subject dedicated to the theory and analysis of social networks. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In all four Slovenian disciplines examined, scientists preferentially form new coauthorships with the coauthors of their coauthors, closing triangles - a signature of small-world clustering within network borders. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | basic research unit of science collaboration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ceremonial citation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ceremonial citation | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | diplomatic non-citation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: diplomatic non-citation | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | core knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: core knowledge | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | research frontier Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: research frontier | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | preferential attachment model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preferential attachment model | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | small-world model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: small-world model | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | structural cohesion model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: structural cohesion model | content_tags.definitions[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | proportion of author works Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proportion of author works | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | proportion of coauthor works Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proportion of coauthor works | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 89.1% — share of single-authored papers in the three Serbian sociology journals, 2000-2010 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 10.9% — share of coauthored papers in the same three journals over the same period Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 33.2% — share of coauthored works in Sociological Abstracts 1963-1999, the comparison figure taken from Moody Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 3.00 — average network distance between Slovenian sociologists reported by Kronegger et al., against 3.97 in physics, 4.36 in biotechnology and 3.91 in mathematics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.