Unleashing the power of AI: a systematic review of cutting-edge techniques in AI-enhanced scientometrics, webometrics and bibliometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to analyze the synergy of artificial intelligence (AI), with scientometrics, webometrics and bibliometrics to unlock and to emphasize the potential of the applications and benefits of AI algorithms in these fields. Design/methodology/approach By conducting a systematic literature review, our aim is to explore the potential of AI in revolutionizing the methods used to measure and analyze scholarly communication, identify emerging research trends and evaluate the impact of scientific publications. To achieve this, we implemented a comprehensive search strategy across reputable databases such as ProQuest, IEEE Explore, EBSCO, Web of Science and Scopus. Our search encompassed articles published from January 1, 2000, to September 2022, resulting in a thorough review of 61 relevant articles. Findings (1) Regarding scientometrics, the application of AI yields various distinct advantages, such as conducting analyses of publications, citations, research impact prediction, collaboration, research trend analysis and knowledge mapping, in a more objective and reliable framework. (2) In terms of webometrics, AI algorithms are able to enhance web crawling and data collection, web link analysis, web content analysis, social media analysis, web impact analysis and recommender systems. (3) Moreover, automation of data collection, analysis of citations, disambiguation of authors, analysis of co-authorship networks, assessment of research impact, text mining and recommender systems are considered as the potential of AI integration in the field of bibliometrics. Originality/value This study covers the particularly new benefits and potential of AI-enhanced scientometrics, webometrics and bibliometrics to highlight the significant prospects of the synergy of this integration through AI.
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 | 0.083 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.056 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".