Measuring University Impact: Wikipedia approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.13980v1
• Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:41:56 GMT
• Title: Measuring University Impact: Wikipedia approach
• Authors: Tatiana Kozitsina (Babkina), Viacheslav Goiko, Roman Palkin, Valentin Khomutenko, Yulia Mundrievskaya, Maria Sukhareva, Isak Froumin, and Mikhail Myagkov
• Abstract summary: We discuss the new methodological technique that evaluates the impact of university based on popularity of their alumni's pages on Wikipedia. Preliminary analysis shows that the number of page-views is higher for the contemporary persons that prove the perspectives of this approach. The ranking based on the alumni popularity was compared with the ranking of universities based on the popularity of their webpages on Wikipedia.
• Score: 1.7894318579694353
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The impact of Universities on the social, economic and political landscape is one of the key directions in contemporary educational evaluation. In this paper, we discuss the new methodological technique that evaluates the impact of university based on popularity (number of page-views) of their alumni's pages on Wikipedia. It allows revealing the alumni popularity dynamics and tracking its state. Preliminary analysis shows that the number of page-views is higher for the contemporary persons that prove the perspectives of this approach. Then, universities were ranked based on the methodology and compared to the famous international university rankings ARWU and QS based only on alumni scales: for the top 10 universities, there is an intersection of two universities (Columbia University, Stanford University). The correlation coefficients between different university rankings are provided in the paper. Finally, the ranking based on the alumni popularity was compared with the ranking of universities based on the popularity of their webpages on Wikipedia: there is a strong connection between these indicators.

Related papers

• AGRaME: Any-Granularity Ranking with Multi-Vector Embeddings [53.78802457488845]
  We introduce the idea of any-granularity ranking, which leverages multi-vector embeddings to rank at varying levels of granularity. We demonstrate the application of proposition-level ranking to post-hoc citation addition in retrieval-augmented generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T20:04:54Z)
• Forecasting Success of Computer Science Professors and Students Based on Their Academic and Personal Backgrounds [0.0]
  We analyze the influence of students' previous universities on their chances of being accepted to prestigious North American universities. Our findings demonstrate that the ranking of their prior universities is a significant factor in achieving their goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-04T18:30:24Z)
• Waiting, Banning, and Embracing: An Empirical Analysis of Adapting Policies for Generative AI in Higher Education [7.623773809868841]
  This study aims to understand how universities establish policies regarding the use of AI tools. We analyzed the top 500 universities according to the 2022 World University Rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T02:01:56Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• Mining Meta-indicators of University Ranking: A Machine Learning Approach Based on SHAP [0.0]
  This research discovered three meta-indicators based on interpretable machine learning. The first one is time, to be friends with time, and believe in the power of time, and accumulate historical deposits; the second one is space, to be friends with city, and grow together by co-develop.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-24T14:49:19Z)
• Incentives for Item Duplication under Fair Ranking Policies [69.14168955766847]
  We study the behaviour of different fair ranking policies in the presence of duplicates. We find that fairness-aware ranking policies may conflict with diversity, due to their potential to incentivize duplication more than policies solely focused on relevance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-29T11:11:15Z)
• Heads in the Clouds: Measuring the Implications of Universities Migrating to Public Clouds [39.16294179753668]
  We study the migration of universities to public clouds among universities in the U.S. and Europe. We find that cloud adoption differs between countries, with one cluster showing a limited move to clouds. We then analyze and interpret our results, finding that the implications reach beyond individuals' privacy towards questions of academic independence and integrity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-19T17:25:10Z)
• PiRank: Learning To Rank via Differentiable Sorting [85.28916333414145]
  We propose PiRank, a new class of differentiable surrogates for ranking. We show that PiRank exactly recovers the desired metrics in the limit of zero temperature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-12T05:07:36Z)
• The Ivory Tower Lost: How College Students Respond Differently than the General Public to the COVID-19 Pandemic [66.80677233314002]
  Pandemic of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented governments with ultimate challenges. In the United States, the country with the highest confirmed COVID-19 infection cases, a nationwide social distancing protocol has been implemented by the President. This paper aims to discover the social implications of this unprecedented disruption in our interactive society by mining people's opinions on social media.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T13:02:38Z)
• Echo Chambers on Social Media: A comparative analysis [64.2256216637683]
  We introduce an operational definition of echo chambers and perform a massive comparative analysis on 1B pieces of contents produced by 1M users on four social media platforms. We infer the leaning of users about controversial topics and reconstruct their interaction networks by analyzing different features. We find support for the hypothesis that platforms implementing news feed algorithms like Facebook may elicit the emergence of echo-chambers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T20:00:27Z)
• How Reliable are University Rankings? [0.7646713951724009]
  We take a fresh look at this ranking scheme using the public College dataset. We show in multiple ways that this ranking scheme is not reliable and cannot be trusted as authoritative. We conclude by making the case that all data and methods used for rankings should be made open for validation and repeatability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T01:00:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.