Deep Learning Research: Scientometric Assessment of Global Publications Output during 2004 -17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper provides a quantitative and qualitative description of deep learning research using bibliometric indicators covering global research publications published during 14-year period 2004-17. Global deep learning research registered 106.76% high growth per annum, and averaged 7.99 citations per paper. Top 10 countries world- over dominate the research field with their 99.74% global publications share and more than 100% global citations share. China ranks the top with the highest (29.25%) global publications share, followed by USA (26.46%), U.K. (6.40%), etc. during the period. Canada tops in relative citation index (5.30). International collaboration has been a major driver of research in the subject with 14.96% to 53.76% of national-level share of top 10 countries output appeared as international collaborative publications. Computer Science is one of the most popular areas of research in deep learning research (76.85% share). The study identifies top 50 most productive organizations and 50 most productive authors and top 20 most productive journals reporting deep learning research and 118 highly cited papers with 100+ citations per paper.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".