Changes in the Structures and Directions of Rock Excavation Research from 1999 to 2020: A Bibliometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock excavation has been the hot spot and frontier of scientific research. Rock excavation research is in a period of rapid development. The bibliographies included in ISI Web of Knowledge database from 1999–2020 were used as data samples, and the collected data were analyzed by literature co‐citation and cluster analysis using CiteSpace and VOSviewer information visualization techniques and dynamic network analysis tools. A knowledge map of the evolution of bibliometric research development is drawn to reveal the representative literature in the field of bibliometrics. The hot areas of bibliometric research are introduced. The development trend of bibliometrics is proposed. The results of the study show that the amount of the literature on rock excavation is growing rapidly. A large amount of the foreign literature is available in China, the United States, Australia, Canada, France, and other countries. The main included journals are Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, “Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,” “Engineering Geology,” and “Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment.” Keyword co‐occurrence analysis includes the following contents: rock damage constitutive model, excavation damage area, numerical simulation, stability analysis support, and prediction technology of rock.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".