MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382563255 · doi:10.54941/ahfe1003940

Emotional space design research based on bibliometric tools

2023· article· en· W4382563255 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

VenueAHFE international · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)CitationCitation indexData scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental psychology research and the emotional design boom have led to a series of theoretical studies and practical activities on emotional design in space. It includes interior design, architectural design, display design, and other space planning and design work. In order to conduct a deeper study and practice of emotional space design, a bibliometric and review approach was used to visualise and analyse data from the literature on emotional space design to understand the development trends of emotional space design. The literature data were sourced from the Web of Science (WoS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI Expanded), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) as the literature search source, enter TS=((emotion OR affective) AND (space design OR interior design OR landscape architecture )) in the advanced search formula generator, and set the search time to the whole year, i.e., 1991-2023. And 1146 documents were obtained. After excluding articles with missing field information, duplicate data, and those with no relevance to the selected topic, 629 valid documents were finally accepted. This paper uses two bibliometric tools, VOSviewer (Version 1.6.19) and CiteSpace (Version 5.6.R3), to obtain critical data such as keyword clustering profiles, Strongest Citation Bursts, highly cited literature, and visual images for this research topic. This information shows that the literature on emotional space design is generally rising. There is no downward trend in the literature output at this research stage, so it is judged that research in this area is in a high-growth phase. The United States, England, China, Australia, and Canada are the major research countries in this field; Cornell, Leeds, UCL, and other leading institutions in architecture and design-related disciplines are the primary subjects of research in emotional space design. International journals of environmental research and public health, Sustainability, and Building and environment are core journals in the field of environmental science and engineering. They all have a high volume of articles (≥20) and an impact factor (IF) of over 4.00, which shows the importance of emotional spatial design in this field of research. The 629 imported documents were imported into VOSviewer, and the co-occurrence frequency was set to 4. Finally, 204 keywords were obtained by merging synonyms. The four clusters formed were named #1 Affective Space Design; #2 Healthcare; #3 Virtual; and #4 Design Evaluation, based on the primary keyword information. In conjunction with the analysis of the Top 30 Keywords with the Strongest Citation Bursts generated by Citespace, future research on emotional space design is expected to focus on Virtual Environment, Healthcare, Difference Sustainable design, topical social issues, interdisciplinarity and user experience and Affective Response. The analysis of the top ten high-frequency references regarding co-citations shows that the underlying theoretical support for emotional space design comes mainly from research in environmental psychology, psychology, and colour psychology. Evidence-based healthcare design research repeatedly appears in the references to emotional space design, which is a research hotspot for emotional space design.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0210.023
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.163 · 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