Knowledge mapping of population health: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, population health has aroused great interest, especially after the outbreak of Covid-19. The related research increases substantially year by year. There are many kinds of research about population health, but few scholars use the bibliometric method to discuss them. Motivated by keeping abreast of emerging trends and critical turns in population health, this study adopts the bibliometric method to analyze the development history and status quo of population health, providing a summary description for it. This study adopts CiteSpace to conduct a bibliometric analysis of publications related to population health in Web of Science from 1971 to 2021. The most productive countries, authors, institutions, and research direction changes are analyzed. The research results show that: First, the number of publications and citations related to population health increases for years, especially in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Second, the number of publications by different countries or institutions in population health varies greatly, and they cooperate closely. Third, the co-occurrence of disciplines and keywords in population health is displayed. Finally, this study reveals the primary research force, the major themes, significant milestones, landmarks, and the evolution of the hot fronts. In all, the comprehensive analysis of this study would provide some enlightenment for future research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.138 | 0.173 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".