Tracing Knowledge Diffusion Trajectories in Scholarly Bitcoin Research: Co-Word and Main Path Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the burgeoning field of bitcoin research, a cohesive understanding of how knowledge and insights have evolved over time is lacking. This study aims to address this gap through an exploration of 4123 academic articles pertaining to bitcoin. Utilizing co-word analysis and main path analysis (MPA), it uncovers key themes and seminal works that have substantially influenced the field’s progression. The identified clusters, including safe haven, internet of things (IoT), proof of work (PoW), market efficiency, sentiment analysis, digital currency, and privacy, shed light on the multifaceted discourse surrounding bitcoin. The MPA, incorporating both forward and backward local paths, traces an evolving narrative, starting from an in-depth exploration of bitcoin’s structure, anonymity, and contrasts against traditional financial assets. It tracks the shift in focus to broader market dynamics, volatility, speculative nature, and reactions to economic policy fluctuations. The analysis underscores the transformation of bitcoin research, from its beginnings as a decentralized, privacy-oriented currency to its role in global economics and green financing, revealing a complex narrative of an innovative financial instrument to a multifaceted entity. Implications drawn from this analysis include the need for further research on the potential integration of bitcoin within emerging technologies like AI and cybersecurity, the implications of bitcoin’s interplay with traditional financial systems, and the environmental impacts of bitcoin and blockchain utilization. Overall, the current study not only enhances our understanding of the bitcoin field but also charts its dynamic evolution and stimulates further academic inquiry.
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 | 0.015 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".