Green Accounting Study: Twenty-Seven Years Lesson of Scientometric Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green accounting is a new type of accounting that has started to emerge over time. This has been research but as yet no idea about green accounting study that shows the big picture using data from all countries. This paper aims to review the status and visual map position of green accounting study indexed by Scopus used a scientometric. The research was carried out using scientometric techniques. Data analysis as well as visualization utilising VOSViewer program and the Scopus function for analyze search results. In this review, the details collected applied to 200 documents issued from 1992 through 2019. The study reveals that Cairns, R.D, and McGill University were the most active individual scientists and affiliated institutions in the Green Accounting study. In green Accounting, Environmental Science and Ecological Economics were the most areas of study and dissemination sources. There were four worldwide group maps with collaborative researchers. In order to identify the body of knowledge created from twenty-seven years of publication, this study constructed a convergence axis grouping comprising of Green Accounting Study: Social, Sustainable, Savings, Environmental, Economic, Accounting, abbreviated as the SSSEEA theme.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".