Trends of Publications (1910-2020) on Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Emergency Versus General Climate Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents and discusses analytical data on the scientific publication record from 1910 to 2020 on two topics: "climate" and "climate change/global warming/climate emergency". The goal is to visualize how the publication record on these two topics has evolved over time, from different classification perspectives (year, country, source and organization). Three hypotheses are tested using data collected from Web of Science and various graphical representations of the data. It is found that research output related to the Earth’s contemporary changing climate overtook that of general climate research in 2011, and the publication ratio has been expanding in the last decade. There are significant differences in the publication countries and sources between the two topics, and conversely less significant differences in terms of organizations publishing these works. Differentiation factors that affect the level of research output and engagement on the climate challenge include: island versus landlocked nations, specialized versus general scientific journals, academic versus institutional organizations. The future of the publication records is discussed, such as the emergence of new terms to refer to the climate challenge, such as “climate emergency”.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".