Occupational therapy publications by Australian authors: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.085 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".