Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the knowledge structure based on the articles published in Library Hi Tech. The research hotspots are expected to be revealed through the keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Design/methodology/approach Data sets based on publications from Library Hi Tech covering the time period from 2006 to 2017 were extracted from Web of Science and developed as testbeds for evaluation of the CiteSpace system. Highly cited keywords were analyzed by CiteSpace which supports visual exploration with knowledge discovery in bibliographic databases. Findings The findings suggested that the percentage of publications in the USA, Germany, China, and Canada are high. Further, the most popular keywords identified in Library Hi Tech were: “service,” “technology,” “digital library,” “university library,” and “academic library.” Finally, four research issues were identified based on the most-cited articles in Library Hi Tech. Originality/value While keyword plays an important role in scientific research, limited studies paid attention to the keyword analysis in librarian research. The contribution of this study is to systematically explore the knowledge structure constructed by the keywords in Library Hi Tech.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".