Progress and Trends of Affective Prosody Research over 25 Years: A Bibliometrics-Based Visualization Analysis (1997–2021)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affective prosody is an indispensable cognitive cue that moderates social activities, and has become a prevailing research topic in psychology-related disciplines. The present study conducts the first bibliometrics-based visualization analysis concerning affective prosody to evaluate the influential cases, including countries/regions, institutions, publication venues, academic articles, and disciplinary contributions, and the diachronic changes of publication trends and research hotspots. With the combination of statistical results and a qualitative literature inspection, limitations of extant studies and promising research directions were also proposed. The present study extracted the bibliographic data of 1,624 articles retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, which were published over the past 25 years (1997-2021). Statistical results revealed four leading powers (the U.S., Germany, England, and Canada) and four emerging fronts (China, France, Netherlands, and Switzerland), and identified three primary research themes in this field, including clinical implication, measurable index, and modality-specific issues. Literature inspection demonstrated current limitations in individual characteristics control and experiment-related influential factors, and proposed two prosperous research directions. Findings of the present study could facilitate academic retrieval of affective prosody research, help concerned researchers identify thematic hotspots and seek appropriate collaboration, and provide convenience for research policy and management in this field.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it