Gamification in Online Education: A Visual Bibliometric Network Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study applies bibliometric and network analysis methods to map the literature-based landscape of gamification in online distance learning. Two thousand four hundred and nineteen publications between 2000 and 2023 from the Scopus database were analyzed. Leading journals, influential articles, and the most critical topics on gamification in online training were identified. The co-authors’ analysis demonstrates a considerable rise in the number of nations evaluating research subjects, indicating increasing international cooperation. The main contributors are the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, and Canada. The co-occurrence network analysis of keywords revealed six distinct research clusters: (i) the implementation of gamification in various learning contexts, (ii) investigating the application of gamification in student education to promote the use of electronic learning, (iii) utilizing artificial intelligence tools in online learning, (iv) exploring educational technologies, (v) developing strategies for creating a playful learning environment, and (vi) understanding children’s learning processes. Finally, an analysis of the most cited articles identified three research themes: (a) gamification-based learning platforms, (b) measurement of users’ appreciation and satisfaction, and (c) 3D virtual immersive learning environments. This study contributes to the subject discipline by informing researchers about the latest research trends in online education gamification and identifying promising research directions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it