Oil Spill Detection and Mapping: A 50-Year Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil spill detection and mapping (OSPM) is an extremely relevant issue from a scientific point of view due to the environmental impact on coastal and marine ecosystems. In this study, we present a new approach to assess scientific literature for the past 50 years. In this sense, our study aims to perform a bibliometric and network analysis using a literature review on the application of OSPM to assess researchers and trends in this field of science. In methodological terms we used the Scopus base to search for articles in the literature, then we used bibliometric tools to access information and reveal quantifying patterns in this field of literature. Our results suggest that the detection of oil in the sea has undergone a great evolution in the last decades and there is a strong relationship between the technological evolution aimed at detection with the improvement of remote sensing data acquisition methods. The most relevant contributions in this field of science involved countries such as China, the United States, and Canada. We revealed aspects of great importance and interest in OSPM literature using a bibliometric and network approach to give a clear overview of this field’s research trends.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.199 | 0.182 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".