Cryptocurrencies: A 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
The purpose of the current paper is to identify influential aspects of published literature and future research questions to set forth future research agenda based on comprehensive literature review using bibliometric and content analysis. The study analyzed 1225 documents from the international Scopus database using bibliometric analysis and content analysis. VOSviewer software is used for bibliometric analysis. The analysis revealed that most of the information was derived from the Finance Research Letters. Moreover, the United Kingdom is the most cited country, while Tianjin University in China has the highest publications affiliations. Furthermore, the analysis shows that the keyword analysis of cryptocurrency literature had four classes of research streams in cryptocurrency, namely, cryptocurrency, Blockchain, Fintech, and currency, representing the most upcoming trends. The present study makes a significant contribution to the literature by providing a framework for future research. The framework provides opportunities to future researchers to explore the web of relations among some identified research streams as future research agenda.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.095 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| 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 it