MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982643981 · doi:10.3233/isu-190060

A brief historical overview of artificial intelligence research

2019· article· en· W2982643981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stacey C. Tobin, Bamini Jayabalasingham, Sarah Huggett, Maria de Kleijn

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Services & Use · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives a brief timeline of the evolution of the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a field that is currently generating approximately sixty thousand research papers per year. This represents a 12.9% growth in output over the past five years, and is markedly higher than the growth seen across all research, which has grown at a rate of 2.3% per year in the same period. AI research is of interest around the world and this paper highlights many of the activities undertaken to stimulate this research in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Asia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.013

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Services & UseSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207