MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304694384 · doi:10.1080/1331677x.2022.2125888

Bibliometric analysis of the literature on critical thinking: an increasingly important competence for higher education students

2022· article· en· W4304694384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Javier Pagán Castaño, M. Arnal‐Pastor, Esther Pagán-Castaño, María Guijarro-García

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningCompetence (human resources)Critical thinkingField (mathematics)Library scienceSocial sciencePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, interest in critical thinking(CT) has grown considerably. An evaluation of this research field and its challenges are provided in this paper. A bibliometric study was performed to analyse 1,295 papers on CT published in the last 50 years. The data were obtained from the WOS Core Collection database. The findings of this study improve the understanding of the CT domain by showing key studies, the main studies developing the field, key past studies and their influence in subsequent publications, emerging trends and potentially transformative ideas. Most publications and citations are from the last decade, reflecting the momentum of this concept over the period examined. The topic has also expanded geographically. Although the University of Iowa and the University of Alberta are the most prolific institutions, Asian universities have gained in prominence in recent years, as shown by the number of papers published. According to the analysis, the increase in the number of authors, publications and journals in this field and the rise in the number of publications written in collaboration with authors from different parts of the world are two trends that reflect the interest in CT as a way to understand the development of thinking skills.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0130.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic Research-Ekonomska IstraživanjaSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207