Identification and Visualization of Spatial and Temporal Trends in Textile Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research volume increases at the study rate, causing massive text corpora. Due to these enormous text corpora, we are drowning in data and starving for information. Therefore, recent research employed different text mining approaches to extract information from this text corpus. These proposed approaches extract meaningful and precise phrases that effectively describe the text's information. These extracted phrases are commonly termed keyphrases. Further, these key phrases are employed to determine the different fields of study trends. Moreover, these key phrases can also be used to determine the spatiotemporal trends in the various research fields. In this research, the progress of a research field can be better revealed through spatiotemporal bibliographic trend analysis. Therefore, an effective spatiotemporal trend extraction mechanism is required to disclose textile research trends of particular regions during a specific period. This study collected a diversified dataset of textile research from 2011–2019 and different countries to determine the research trend. This data was collected from various open access journals. Further, this research determined the spatiotemporal trends using quality phrase mining. This research also focused on finding the research collaboration of different countries in a particular research subject. The research collaborations of other countries’ researchers show the impact on import and export of those countries. The visualization approach is also incorporated to understand the results better.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".