Mapping the literature on the qualitative approach to childhood asthma from 1996 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo Objectives: to describe the scientific production of qualitative studies in childhood asthma. Methods: bibliometric analysis. Articles were from Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and PubMed (1996-2018), using the search terms asthma, children, qualitative research, qualitative study, qualitative analysis, ethnographic, phenomenology and narrative. Results: 258 articles were retrieved from 143 journals, representing 1.2% of scientific articles on childhood asthma. The growth rate was high. Authorship included 969 authors (85.3% occasional) from 279 institutions. 94.2% were co-authored and 3.5% were international collaborations. The greatest number of articles were from the United States (45.3%), United Kingdom (17.4%) and Canada (7.4%). The categories with the highest number of articles were Nursing & Public, Environmental & Occupational Health (18.2%), Respiratory System (10.1%) and Allergy (7.7%). 99.7% of the articles were in English. Conclusion: these results show a lack of consolidation of the literature based on qualitative studies on childhood asthma with a high percentage of occasional authors and limited international collaboration, indicating a need to strengthen this approach.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.168 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".