Innovation in creative industries: Bibliometrix analysis and research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Innovation has received a great attention in the creative industries literature. We propose in this study a bibliometric method to examine the literature on innovation in creative industries (ICI). A file of 656 manuscripts published on ICI between 1998 and 2022 was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection for analysis. The results highlight the evolution of study volume, authors, affiliated institutions and countries, author networks, keyword co-occurrences, and keyword networks. The study also includes a thematic map that highlights four types of research: driving themes (e.g., digital technology, cultural innovation, performing arts, product innovation, innovation management); core and cross-cutting themes (e.g., creativity, digitization, technology, copyright); emerging themes (e.g., gender, artificial intelligence, sustainability); and specialized and peripheral themes (e.g., gender, blockchain, digital music). We finally conclude by proposing future perspectives and a research agenda in this area.</span></p>
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.070 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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; 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".