MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317370883 · doi:10.1108/bij-10-2021-0578

Exploring research trends of <i>procrastination</i>: a bibliometric analysis during 2010 to 2020

2023· article· en· W4317370883 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBenchmarking An International Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcrastinationBibliographic couplingContent analysisCitationBibliometricsCitation analysisPsychologyConsolidation (business)SociologySocial scienceLibrary scienceSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The aim of this paper is to offer insight into procrastination over the past decade using bibliometric analysis to gauge the evolving journey of this concept. Thus, the concept of procrastination is examined in terms of authors, affiliating institutions, countries, citation patterns, bibliometric coupling and co-occurrence analysis. Design/methodology/approach For exploring the research work on procrastination, the bibliometric analysis was conducted for co-authorship, co-occurrence of keywords, citation network analysis, most influential authors, document and country wise bibliometric coupling by taking 630 publications between the years 2010–2020 into consideration. Software like VOSviewer and Tableau was used for result analysis. In addition, the content analysis was used for the top research papers amongst the eleven different clusters. Findings The study reveals the nature and direction of research over the past decade on procrastination. The most prominent journals, authors, articles, institutions, countries and keywords have been identified. The topic shows an upward trend of research as no consolidation or maturity in the pattern is observed. Frontiers In Psychology had the highest number of publications followed by Personality And Individual Differences. The top three contributors are Sirosis, F.M., Feng, T. and Ferrari, J.R. The country-wise analysis shows the USA leading followed by Germany, China and Canada. UiT The Arctic University of Norway was having the most significant contribution followed by The Ohio State University, DePaul University and Tel Hai Academic College. The most prominent themes and documents are reported. In addition, the content analysis depicted the need to conduct the research work on the certain themes which may usher the researchers towards more conceptual clarity and strategizing. Originality/value Sufficient discourse and relevant literature are available about procrastination, bedtime procrastination and academic procrastination and related areas. However, procrastination is becoming a universal issue, especially in the field of human resources and workforce development. This paper attempts to facilitate the policy-makers, regulators, researchers and practitioners to explore allied and less explored areas of procrastination that need future investigation.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.1290.149
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.209 · 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