Visualizing the evolution of touchscreen research by scientometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to present recent trends in touchscreen research through scientometric analysis. Devices with touchscreen are powerful tools for performing specialized operations. The touch screens of tablets, smartphones, laptops and television play an important role in teaching, learning and research. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected from Web of Science database from 2011 to 2021 and analysed using MS-Excel and VOSviewer software. After analysing 389 research papers, the authors identified the high impact journals, collaboration of countries, institutions, authors and growth trend of publications. Analysing the most used keywords, country-wise distribution of publications and research collaboration between institutions will help interpret the research trends in the selected time span. Findings The publications show an increase in number over the years from 2011 to 2021. Among the countries, USA has the highest number of 127 articles published, followed by England (61) and Canada (30). The results showed that the multiple authorship pattern in touchscreen publication is high when compared to single authors. The institutional analysis indicated that the organizations publishing more than five documents in the area were mostly from United Kingdom, Australia, USA and Korea. Timeline visualizations identified prominent keywords like touchscreen, performance, operant platform, Alzheimer’s disease, etc. in the subject. Interdisciplinary research is dominant in the subject, as seen from the most preferred journals and keywords. Research limitations/implications The analysis does not include a comprehensive coverage of the research output, as only Web of Science database from 2011 to 2021 in a 10-year period is included. Practical implications The study would benefit stakeholders, including manufacturers and researchers alike, to know the future of touchscreen research. Social implications This study is pertinent to socio-psychological fields because touchscreen technology encourages social connection among older persons and may help foster early literacy skills. Originality/value This paper will provide an understanding of the global developments in touchscreen research with recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.025 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.125 | 0.143 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".