MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205436898 · doi:10.1002/rev3.3328

Trends of WoS educational research articles in the last half‐century

2022· article· en· W4205436898 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaLibrary scienceWeb of scienceEducational researchPolitical scienceBibliometricsSocial scienceGeographySociologyMEDLINEComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this study was to reveal the development trends of the last 50 years of Web of Science (WoS) educational research. For this aim, 93,699 articles published in 116 journals were analysed with bibliometric techniques. The results of the analysis showed that the number of WoS educational research articles accelerated in 1980, 2008 and 2019. The first conclusion of the research was that funding support is an important factor in the number of WoS educational research articles. The core topics of educational research by countries, year intervals, Q categories of journals and all sub‐disciplines of education were revealed in this study, and the second conclusion of this research was that the core topics of the last half‐century of WoS educational research articles were higher education, teacher education, professional development and assessment. In addition, the study revealed that components of the core topics in educational research have differed according to countries, year intervals, Q categories of journals and all sub‐disciplines of education. The results of this study showed that the focus of the articles published in Q1 journals was technology‐assisted learning environments. The most productive countries were the USA, UK, Australia and Canada. In addition, China and Taiwan were among the top 10 with increasing article number in recent years. According to another conclusion of this study, the contribution rates of the top 10 countries to educational research tended to decrease with the contributions of other countries’ researchers to the field. It was found that the most productive authors were C.C. Tsai, G.J. Hwang and W.M. Roth. On the other hand, the most productive organisations, the journals that publish the most articles, the organisations that provide the most funds and the common features of the most cited articles were determined in the present study. The diversity in educational researches can be achieved by knowing the topics that researchers have been interested in the past periods. Therefore, the results of the present study are considered to be indicative for different studies in future.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.219 · 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