A meditação como área de conhecimento: estudo cientométrico
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study aims to analyze the insertion of the theme Meditation in the core of scientific journals in the medical field to identify the most productive countries in research results and their communication in medical scientific journals from 2009 to 2018, indexed in the Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. The motivation for selecting the meditation theme was because this theme has grown and has been presented as one of the most widely used Complementary Therapies worldwide. The choice of the cited bases was due to its multidisciplinary coverage and to index high impact journals.The time frame of 10 was adopted because it makes possible to assess the evolution of this theme in recent years. The theoretical foundation covers authors and concepts of scientific communication, metric studies and the field of Complementary Therapies. This is a descriptive, Scientometric study with a quantitative approach. Data analysis and systematization tools were: Web of Science – Main Collection and SCOPUS (databases), Journal Citation Reports and SCImago Journal & Country Rank; Periodical Portal CAPES, Excel program and Wordsift tool. The follow categories were analyzed: Scientific production by country; Nucleus of journals from the five countries; Co-authorship network; Theme representativeness / Keywords; and Scientific production X Citation.In the Scientific production by country, the ranking of leading countries in the research related to the topic under study was identified: in the Web of Science database (1st position: United States; 2nd position: England; 3rd position: Australia; 4th position: Canada; and 5th position: India); in the SCOPUS base (1st position: United States; 2nd position: United Kingdom; 3rd position: India; 4th position: Australia; and 5th position: Canada). In the Core category of journals, it was identified that most of the journals' titles are of high impact and come from countries in North America and Europe, in both bases. It was also identified that the journals are classified in several categories in the medical field.In the Representativeness of the theme / Keywords it was noticed that the keywords cited in the articles by the author and by the databases refer to the most varied medical specialties. With regard to Co-authorship, the United States was the country that stood out as the largest partner of the four countries in the two databases, except with Australia (SCOPUS). Most of these partnerships took place between universities in the five countries, in both databases. In most studies, multiple authorship occurred in the five countries. Scientific Production X Citation showed that the Elite of producers from the five countries under study, on both bases, is formed by a small group of researchers. This group corresponds to one or at most two authors who published between 26 and 70 articles on the topic. The Front of research showed that the big producers have published their studies, mostly in English and in journals indexed in the two bases. It is understood that this study may contribute to the knowledge of important dimensions of the studies carried out by five leading countries on this subject.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,059 | 0,180 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,051 | 0,085 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».