Comparative Performance of Adult Social Care Research, 1996–2011: A Bibliometric Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision makers in adult social care are increasingly interested in using evidence from research to support or shape their decisions. The scope and nature of the current landscape of adult social care research (ASCR) need to be better understood. This paper provides a bibliometric assessment of ASCR outputs from 1996 to 2011. ASCR papers were retrieved using three strategies: from key journals; using keywords and noun phrases; and from additional papers preferentially citing or being cited by other ASCR papers. Overall, 195,829 ASCR papers were identified in the bibliographic database Scopus, of which 16 per cent involved at least one author from the UK. The UK output increased 2.45-fold between 1996 and 2011. Among selected countries, those with greater research intensity in ASCR generally had higher citation impact, such as the USA, UK, Canada and the Netherlands. The top five UK institutions in terms of volume of papers in the UK accounted for 26 per cent of total output. We conclude by noting the limitations to bibliometric analysis of ASCR and examine how such analysis can support the strategic development of the field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".