SCIENCE MAPS AND BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS ON HYGIENE EDUCATION DURING 2012-2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hygiene education is becoming increasingly popular and is now addressed in both formal and informal education systems. Examining hygiene education research and developing a vision for the future will lead to creating a roadmap for future research as well as an analysis of past research. Research on hygiene education encompasses a variety of subtopics. It is critical for future researchers and thematic studies in this area to determine if there is a pattern to these concerns that cover a wide range of topics. The purpose of this study is to examine the topic of hygiene education using bibliometric analysis. From the Scope Database, 503 records remain for bibliometric analysis. This results in an average number of 5.02 publications per year. 1973 people contributed to the study. Among the top 10, most influential sources in terms of the number of articles are four websites related to dental hygiene. The United States leads the world in both the number of publications and a total number of citations, followed by Canada and China. Most of the research was related to oral hygiene education. Keywords: bibliometric analysis, hand hygiene, hygiene education, dental hygiene
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.148 | 0.213 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".