Measuring discursive influence across scholarship.

Assessing scholarly influence is critical for understanding the collective system of scholarship and the history of academic inquiry. Influence is multifaceted, and citations reveal only part of it. Citation counts exhibit preferential attachment and follow a rigid "news cycle" that can miss sustained and indirect forms of influence. Building on dynamic topic models that track distributional shifts in discourse over time, we introduce a variant that incorporates features, such as authorship, affiliation, and publication venue, to assess how these contexts interact with content to shape future scholarship. We perform in-depth analyses on collections of physics research (500,000 abstracts; 102 years) and scholarship generally (JSTOR repository: 2 million full-text articles; 130 years). Our measure of document influence helps predict citations and shows how outcomes, such as winning a Nobel Prize or affiliation with a highly ranked institution, boost influence. Analysis of citations alongside discursive influence reveals that citations tend to credit authors who persist in their fields over time and discount credit for works that are influential over many topics or are "ahead of their time." In this way, our measures provide a way to acknowledge diverse contributions that take longer and travel farther to achieve scholarly appreciation, enabling us to correct citation biases and enhance sensitivity to the full spectrum of scholarly impact.

Is level of prematurity a risk/plasticity factor at three years of age?

Children born preterm have poorer outcomes than children born full-term, but the caregiving environment can ameliorate some of these differences. Recent research has proposed that preterm birth may be a plasticity factor, leading to better outcomes for preterm than full-term infants in higher quality environments. This analysis uses data from two waves of an Irish study of children (at 9 months and 3 years of age, n=11,134 children) and their caregivers (n=11,132 mothers, n=9998 fathers) to investigate differences in how caregiving affects social, cognitive, and motor skills between full-term, late preterm, and very preterm children. Results indicate that parental emotional distress and quality of attachment are important for child outcomes. Both being born very preterm and late preterm continue to be risk factors for poorer outcomes at 3 years of age. Only fathers' emotional distress significantly moderated the effect of prematurity on infants' cognitive and social outcomes-no other interactions between prematurity and environment were significant. These interactions were somewhat in line with diathesis stress, but the effect sizes were too small to provide strong support for this model. There is no evidence that preterm birth is a plasticity factor.

It's distributions all the way down!: second order changes in statistical distributions also occur.

The textual, big-data literature misses Bentley et al.'s message on distributions; it largely examines the first-order effects of how a single, signature distribution can predict population behaviour, neglecting second-order effects involving distributional shifts, either between signature distributions or within a given signature distribution. Indeed, Bentley et al. themselves under-emphasise the potential richness of the latter, within-distribution effects.