Development Status and Hotspot Visualized Analysis of Autonomous Vehicles Based on CiteSpace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety of autonomous driving has been a constant concern, with autonomous driving becoming a research focus in the world today. This study collects the literature in the field of autonomous driving in the Web of Science core data collection from 2005 to 2020. The research status, hot research topics, and the development trend of autonomous driving are reviewed based on CiteSpace from the aspects of number of articles, national collaboration, institutions, scholars, research areas, literature co-citation, keywords, and trends. The results show that the quantitative development of autonomous driving literature has experienced three stages. The research of the United States, China, and Germany is leading in this field. The development of autonomous driving will be in the stage of man-machine driving for a long time. In this study, the progress and trend of visualization in the field of autonomous driving are given, and the future research direction is forecasted, which provides a theoretical basis for the development of autonomous driving. Furthermore, it has reference significance for relevant researchers to understand the research hotspots and future trends in this field.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".