MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020379737 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13050085

Current Research Trends on Interrelationships of Eco-Innovation and Internationalisation: A Bibliometric Analysis

2020· article· en· W3020379737 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paulius Šūmakaris, Deniss Ščeulovs, Renata Korsakienė

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationBibliometricsField (mathematics)Web of scienceKnowledge managementData scienceBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, bibliometric analysis is conducted on eco-innovation and internationalisation, since in the scientific literature, both research fields have been considered as being interrelated. Although the adoption of eco-innovation and internationalisation are risky processes, they reduce competitive risk and increase performance in a highly competitive business environment. The main objective of this study is to identify current research trends on the interrelationships of eco-innovations and internationalisation as well as the main areas of knowledge and to provide a general overview of research streams that can be classified using by papers, authors and journals found in the Web of Science database. In total, 1677 publications published between 1991 and 2020 related to eco-innovations and internationalisation were taken into consideration. For the visualisation of bibliographic material, VOSviewer software was used. These findings provide valuable insights by revealing the trends and highlighting the possible research streams for future investigations in the field of eco-innovations and internationalisation research.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0370.060
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207