Bibliometric Analysis Provides a Detailed Map of Information Literacy Literature in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Bhardwaj, R.K. (2017). Information literacy in the social sciences and humanities: A bibliometric study. Information and Learning Science, 188(1/2), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-09-2016-0068 Abstract Objective – To determine the scope and distribution of information literacy research documents in the humanities and social sciences published from 2001 to 2012. Design – Bibliometric analysis. Setting – N/A Subjects – 1,990 document records retrieved from a Scopus database search. Methods – Using the database Scopus, the author created and conducted a search for documents related to the concept of information literacy. Articles, review papers, conference articles, notes, short surveys, and letters were included in the results. Only documents published from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2012 were included in the study. The author then performed various bibliometric analyses of the results. Main Results – The author found that the number of publications and citations have increased over time, although the average citations per publication (ACPP) decreased significantly during the time period being studied. The majority of the literature published on this topic is in English and produced within the United States. The Transformative Activity Index was calculated to determine changes in publishing patterns across countries from 2001 to 2012. The amount of research collaboration across countries was calculated as well, with the U.S. being the most collaborative. The top journals publishing on this topic were identified by calculating the h-index. An individual from Universidad de Granada in Spain published the greatest number of articles from a single author, and this university was found to have produced the greatest amount of research. Documents produced by the United Kingdom have the highest citation rates. A total of 1,385 documents were cited at least once, and each item on average was cited five times. Conclusion – Most of the articles on information literacy in the social sciences and humanities comes from developed countries. The results of this study may help to inform those interested in researching this field further.
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 | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.234 | 0.246 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
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".