Pigment Coloration Research Published in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1990 to 2020: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis
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
A systematic review and bibliometric study were undertaken utilizing the Science Citation Index Expanded database from 1990 to 2020 to obtain insights into the trajectory of pigment coloration research. The study focused on the publication performance in terms of the yearly production and citations, as well as mainstream journals, categories of the Web of Sciences, leading nations, well-known institutions, and research trends. The survey found that the yearly output of scholarly publications on pigment coloration research climbed gradually throughout the first quarter of the study period and then increased substantially in the latter five years. The present research emphasis and future trends were examined after summarizing the paper title and abstract analyses, author keyword analysis, and the most regularly used keywords derived from words in KeyWords Plus. To expand its reach in numerous application areas, pigment coloration research will continue to focus on improving pigment qualities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.214 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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