Banner Portal
Pattern making and pattern breaking
v. 21 (2022), Artigos
v. 21 (2022)

Pattern making and pattern breaking: measuring novelty in brazilian economic research

Artigos
https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v21i00.8667409
Publicado 2022-09-13
Bernardo Mueller
Universidade de Brasília
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0268-8377
Marcos Paulo R. Correia
Universidade de Brasília
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5420-790X
PDF (English)
PDF Acesso via SciELO

Palavras-chave

Inovação
informações de Shannon
Pesquisa econômica
Surgimento de ideias
ANPEC

Como Citar

MUELLER, Bernardo; CORREIA, Marcos Paulo R. Pattern making and pattern breaking: measuring novelty in brazilian economic research. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, Campinas, SP, v. 21, n. 00, p. e022015, 2022. DOI: 10.20396/rbi.v21i00.8667409. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rbi/article/view/8667409. Acesso em: 20 abr. 2024.
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver

Baixar Citação

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Resumo

How do new ideas emerge in academic contexts and what forces determine which ideas get selected and which are forgotten? We analyze all papers presented at the ANPEC Brazilian Economics National Meetings from 2013 to 2019 using topic modeling and Kullback-Leibler divergence to measure novelty and resonance. In contrast to simply counting citations or reference combinations, these methods explore the Shannon information in the actual texts to detect the rise of new patterns and whether these patterns persist once they have been established. We find that novelty is highly correlated with transience so that most new ideas are quickly forgotten. However, of the ideas that persist, those that are more novel have higher impact. We show that our text-based measure of impact is correlated with subsequent citations.

https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v21i00.8667409
PDF (English)
PDF Acesso via SciELO

Referências

ANUATTI NETO, F. Competição e complementaridade dos centros de pós-graduação em economia. In: LOUREIRO, M. R. (Ed.). 50 anos de ciência econômica no Brasil. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997.

ARROW, K. J. The economics of information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. v. 4.

ASKIN, N.; MAUSKAPF, M. What makes popular culture popular? Product features and optimal differentiation in music. American Sociological Review, Menasha, v. 82, n. 5, p. 910-944, 2017.

ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DOS CENTROS DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ECONOMIA – ANPEC. Brasília, 2021a. Available from: http://www.anpec.org.br/novosite/br. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DOS CENTROS DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ECONOMIA – ANPEC. 49° Encontro Nacional de Economia. Brasília, 2021b. Available from: https://en.anpec.org.br/previouseditions.php. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

ASUNCION, A. et al. On smoothing and inference for topic models. In: UAI ‘09: CONFERENCE ON UNCERTAINTY IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 25., Montreal, Canada. Proceedings... Arlington: AUAI Press, 2012. p. 27-34.

BARABÁSI, A.-L. The formula: the five laws behind why people succeed. London: Pan Macmillan, 2018.

BARRON, A. T. et al. Individuals, institutions, and innovation in the debates of the French revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Washington, v. 115, n. 18, p. 4607-4612, 2018.

BARRON, A. T. NTRexample_FRevNCA. [S.l.]: GitHub, Inc., 2021. Available from: https://github.com/CogentMentat/NTRexample_FRevNCA. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

BARTO, A.; MIROLLI, M.; BALDASSARRE, G. Novelty or surprise? Frontiers in Psychology, Pully, v. 4, p. 907, 2013.

BIANCHI, A. M. Do encontro de Itaipava ao encontro da USP: comentários à margem da história da ANPEC. In: LOUREIRO, M. R. (Ed.). 50 anos de ciência econômica no Brasil. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997.

BLEI, D. M.; NG, A. Y.; JORDAN, M. I. Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, Brookline, v. 3, p. 993-1022, 2003.

BOGDANOV, P.; MOHR, J. W. Topic models: what they are and why they matter. Poetics, The Hague, v. 31, p. 545-569, 2013.

BOIANOVSKY, M. Economists, scientific communities, and pandemics: an exploratory study of Brazil (1918-2020). EconomiA, Brasília, v. 2, n. 1, p. 1-18, 2021.

BOUDREAU, K. J. et al. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science, Providence, v. 62, n. 10, p. 2765-2783, 2016.

BOURDIEU, P. Science of science and reflexivity. United Kingdom: Polity Press, 2004.

BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPQ. Plataforma Lattes. Diretório dos Grupos de Pesquisa no Brasil. Brasília, 2021. Available from: http://www.lattes.cnpq.br/web/dgp/objetivos/. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

CASTILLA, J. P. To kill a black swan: the credibility revolution at CEDE, 2000-2018. [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1992/45870. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

CHANG, K. K.; DEDEO, S. Divergence and the complexity of difference in text and culture. Journal of Cultural Analytics, Montréal, v. 4, p. 1-36, 2020.

CHECCHI, D.; DE FRAJA, G.; VERZILLO, S. Incentives and careers in academia: theory and empirical analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Boston, v. 103, n. 4, p. 786-802, 2021.

CORREIA, M. P. R. Innovation on Brazilian economic research. [S.l.]: GitHub, Inc., 2021. Available from https://github.com/correiamarcos/Innovation-on-brazilian-economic-research. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

COVER, T. M.; THOMAS, J. A. Elements of information theory. USA: Wiley-Interscience, 1991.

DEGAETANO-ORTLIEB, S.; TEICH, E. Using relative entropy for detection and analysis of periods of diachronic linguistic change. In: JOINT SIGHUM WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE, SOCIAL SCIENCES, HUMANITIES AND LITERATURE, 2., Santa Fe, New Mexico. Proceedings... Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. p. 22-33.

ECONOMIA. Brasília: ANPEC, 2021. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/economia. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

EVREN, A.; TUNA, E. On some properties of goodness of fit measures based on statistical entropy. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, Islamabad, v. 13, p. 192-205, 2012.

FARIA, J. R. Is there a trade-off between domestic and international publications? Journal of Socio-Economics, Amsterdam, v. 34, n. 2, p. 269-280, 2005.

FARIA, J. R. Some reflections on incentives for publication: the case of the CAPES list of economic journals. Economia Aplicada, São Paulo, v. 8, n. 4, p. 791-816, 2004.

FARIA, J. R.; ARAUJO JUNIOR, A. F. D.; SHIKIDA, C. D. The international research of academic economists in Brazil: 1999-2006. Economia Aplicada, São Paulo, v. 11, n. 3, p. 387-406, 2007.

FOSTER, J. G.; RZHETSKY, A.; EVANS, J. A. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, Menasha, v. 80, n. 5, p. 875-908, 2015.

GARROUSTE, P. What economics borrows from the statistical theory of information? Boston: Springer, 2001.

GUIMARÃES, B. Qualis as a measuring stick for research output in economics. Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Rio de Janeiro, v. 31, n. 1, p. 3-18, 2011.

HADDAD, E. A.; MENA-CHALCO, J. P.; SIDONE, O. Produção científica e redes de colaboração dos docentes vinculados aos programas de pós-graduação em economia no Brasil. Estudos Econômicos, São Paulo, v. 47, n. 4, p. 617-679, 2017.

HOFFMAN, M.; BACH, F. R.; BLEI, D. M. Online learning for latent Dirichlet allocation. In: LAFFERTY, J. et al. (Eds.). Advances in neural information processing systems. La Jolla: Neural Information Processing Systems, 2010. p. 856-864.

IDEAS. Top 10% Economic Institutions, as of June 2022. St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2022. Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.inst.all.html. Access in: 2 Aug 2022.

ISSLER, J. V.; FERREIRA, R. C. Avaliando pesquisadores e departamentos de economia no Brasil a partir de citações internacionais. Pesquisa e Planejamento Econômico, Brasília, v. 34, n. 3, p. 491-538, 2004.

JING, E., DEDEO, S.; AHN, Y.-Y. Sameness attracts, novelty disturbs, but outliers flourish in fanfiction online. arXiv, Ithaca, p. 1904.07741, 2019. In press.

KEYNES, J. M. The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Switzerland: Springer, 1937.

KNIGHT FRANK, H. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921.

KUHN, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

LOUREIRO, M. R. Anos de ciência econômica no Brasil (1946-1996): pensamento, instituições, depoimentos. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997.

LOUREIRO, M. R.; LIMA, G. T. A internacionalização da ciência econômica no Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, São Paulo, v. 14, n. 3, p. 31-50, 1994.

MAASOUMI, E. A compendium to information theory in economics and econometrics. Econometric Reviews, New York, v. 12, n. 2, p. 137-181, 1993.

MEADOWS, A. J. Communicating research. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998.

MERTON, R. K. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, Washington, v. 159, n. 3810, p. 56-63, 1968.

MUELLER, B. Where’d you get that idea? determinants of creativity and impact in popular music. EconomiA, Brasília, v. 22, n. 1, p. 38-52, 2021.

MURDOCK, J.; ALLEN, C.; DEDEO, S. Exploration and exploitation of Victorian science in Darwin’s reading notebooks. Cognition, Amsterdam, v. 159, p. 117-126, 2017.

NOVAES, W. A pesquisa em economia no Brasil: uma avaliação empírica dos conflitos entre quantidade e qualidade. Revista Brasileira de Economia, Rio de Janeiro, v. 62, n. 4, p. 467-495, 2008.

PETTERINI, F. C. Brazilian academic economics: a picture from the ANPEC exam microdata. EconomiA, Brasília, v. 21, n. 3, p. 325-339, 2020.

SALGANIK, M. J.; DODDS, P. S.; WATTS, D. J. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, Washington, v. 311, n. 5762, p. 854-856, 2006.

SHANNON, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, New York, v. 27, n. 3, p. 379-423, 1948. UNIVERSAL DEPENDENCIES. CoNLL 2018 Shared Task. [S.l.: s.n.], 2018. Available from: https://universaldependencies.org/conll18/ results-lemmas.html. Access in: 28 Oct 2021.

UZZI, B. et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, Washington, v. 342, n. 6157, p. 468-472, 2013.

WALLACH, H. M.; MIMNO, D. M.; MCCALLUM, A. Rethinking LDA: why priors matter. In: BENGIO, Y. et al. (Eds.). Advances in neural information processing systems. La Jolla: Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009.

WANG, J.; VEUGELERS, R.; STEPHAN, P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, Amsterdam, v. 46, n. 8, p. 1416-1436, 2017.

WUCHTY, S.; JONES, B. F.; UZZI, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, Washington, v. 316, n. 5827, p. 1036-1039, 2017.

YOUN, H. et al. Invention as a combinatorial process: evidence from US patents. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, London, v. 12, n. 106, 20150272, 2015.

Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Brasileira de Inovação

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.