Global Leaf Area Index Research over the Past 75 Years: A Comprehensive Review and Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leaf area index (LAI) is widely used as an important indicator and ecological parameter of vegetation structure and growth status, but the LAI lacks bibliometric analysis. To further understand the LAI’s research status and frontier dynamics, we used 75 years of data (1947–2021) from the Web of Science for scientific bibliometric analysis. The results showed that 22,276 LAI re-search papers were published from 1947 to 2021. According to the characteristics of the literature growth, LAI research can be divided into five stages: incubation, cultivation, acceleration, evolution, and outbreak periods. The research power at the different stages had different characteristics. The overall research power of the United States is number one globally, followed by China, Canada, and France. The related disciplines were widely varied, involving agriculture (the most studied field of LAI research), environmental science and ecology, remote sensing, and other fields. The development of the Google Earth engine, cloud computing platforms, and unmanned aerial vehicle technology will provide more critical support for LAI research. The results of this paper quantitatively show the development history, research hotspots, and application of LAI research and provide a reference for understanding the current situation and development trends of global LAI 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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.060 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".