A topic modelling based bibliometric exploration of international business research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the application of machine learning topic modelling to contrast findings with traditional bibliometric approaches and to identify research themes and trends from international business conferences. We apply topic modelling to discover latent themes in a corpus of 934 conference proceeding abstracts from the Annual Meetings of the Academy of International Business (AIB). Using a similar period, we then contrast our findings with that of studies using traditional bibliometric methods. Our analysis reveals that research presented in AIB conferences can be categorised under six broad topics: 1) internationalisation; 2) business model; 3) resources; 4) firm-specific advantages; 5) emerging economies; 6) strategic orientation. The study proposes new research directions based on these findings and discuss applied insights for various stakeholders. Furthermore, it demonstrates the usage of topic modelling as a valuable computer aided content analytic tool for the social sciences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".