MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791804709 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12453

Occupational therapy publications by Australian authors: A bibliometric analysis

2018· article· en· W2791804709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ted Brown, Sharon A. Gutman, Yuh‐Shan Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsOccupational therapyPublishingCitationCitation indexIndex (typography)Library scienceMedicineFamily medicinePsychologySocial scienceMedical educationPolitical scienceSociologyPhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics refers to the collection and measurement of publishing and citation data configurations with the goal of quantifying the influence of scholarly activities. Advantages of bibliometrics include the generation of quantitative indicators of impact, productivity, quality and collaboration. Those parties who benefit from the results of bibliometric analysis include researchers, educators, journal publishers, employers and research funding bodies. METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was completed of peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, written by Australian occupational therapists (who were able to be identified as such), and indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-Expanded) or the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases. "Occupational therapy" and "occupational therapist(s)" were used as keywords to search journal articles' publication title, abstract, author details, keywords and KeyWord Plus. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 2015, 752 peer-reviewed journal articles were published by Australian occupational therapy authors. On average, those articles had 3.7 authors, 35 references, and were nine pages in length. The top four journals in which Australian occupational therapists published were Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, and Physical and Occupational Therapy in Paediatrics. The four Australian institutions that generated the largest number of occupational therapy articles were the University of Queensland, University of Sydney, La Trobe University, and Monash University. The top four countries with whom Australian authors collaborated in manuscript writing were the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Sweden. CONCLUSION: The volume of occupational therapy peer-reviewed literature has grown over the last two decades. Australian authors have and continue to make significant contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge nationally and internationally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1140.188
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.346
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207