Highly Cited Occupational Therapy Articles in the Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A bibliometric analysis was completed of highly cited occupational therapy literature and authors published from 1991 to 2014 and accessible in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases. METHOD: Data were obtained from the SCI-Expanded and SSCI. Articles referenced >100 times were categorized as highly cited articles (HCA). RESULTS: Of 6,486 articles found, 31 were categorized as HCA. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy published the largest number of HCA (n = 8; 26%). The 31 HCA were distributed across seven countries: United States (20 articles), Canada (3), United Kingdom (3), Australia (2), the Netherlands (1), New Zealand (1), and Sweden (1). The three authors with the highest Y-index were S. J. Page, F. Clark, and W. Dunn. CONCLUSION: A latency period of 4 to 5 yr post-publication appears to be needed for a journal article to gain citations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.185 | 0.174 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".