The Ascent of Bitcoin: Bibliometric Analysis of Bitcoin Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bitcoin, as the first decentralized cryptocurrency, pioneers the cryptocurrency markets, both in terms of market capitalization and scientific interest. In this paper, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric study of the Bitcoin-related literature. Using the Scopus database, we created a sample that comprises 4495 documents written in the 2011–2020 period. Furthermore, we provided insights about dimensions such as the change in the number of publications over the course of years, the main research areas, types of published documents, most important platforms and sources of Bitcoin publications, highly cited studies, productive authors, author’s countries, and finally main funders of Bitcoin-related research. Lastly, our bibliometric study manifests the current state and future path of Bitcoin literature from distinct perspectives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.084 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it