Approaching Artificial Intelligence in business and economics research: a bibliometric panorama (1966–2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study takes stock of business and economics research on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and provides a dynamic panorama of the overall knowledge structure of this ever-growing body of work ever since its inception in 1966. Our bibliometric analysis based on the full archive of 1024 studies identifies the main trends of and the major intellectual contributors to the extant knowledge of AI in business and economics research. Specifically, our results show that (1) AI-focused business and economics research wintnessed growth over three stages, particularly with a sharp increase after 2017. (2) While this body of research has gained tremendous momentum across the globe, the United States is by far the center of knowledge generation. (3) Research collaborations are still limited in this area. (4) Research topics flourished, ranging from early decision support systems, neural networks, and scheduling methods to more recent machine learning, automation, and big data. This study also identifies fruitful avenues for further business and economics research with an AI focus.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.083 | 0.144 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".