A Bibliometric Analysis of Artificial Intelligence during COVID-19 Based on WOS Data Abdelmageed Algamdi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article opens up a new field of research in Light of COVID-19 Artificial Intelligence, mainly explaining this binding domain's current trends and knowledge fields.
 The bibliometric analysis was performed to present new research trends in Artificial Intelligence in light of COVID-19. The data of 1635 studies published in Web of Science were analyzed during the last two years (2020-2021) using three software CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and KnowledgeMatrix Plus.
 The findings suggest that there are twelve research clusters in this topic (emerging industry, cross-sectional survey study, emerging technologies, joint position paper, colony predation algorithm, medical worker, deep learning, covid-19 risk prediction, future smart connected communities, supply chain resilience, virtual screening, and k-12 students). The United States, People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, India, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Australia, Spain, South Korea, and Canada are the most intriguing countries that investigated this issue during COVID-19, so this study reveals the latest policy trends in Artificial intelligence using bibliometric analysis
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".