MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396568181 · doi:10.3126/njmr.v7i1.65142

Decolonization in Focus: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Articles from 2010 to 2023

2024· article· en· W4396568181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dipak Mahat, Tej Bahadur Karki, Dasarath Neupane, Diwat Kumar Shrestha, Sajeeb Kumar Shrestha

Bibliographic record

VenueNepal Journal of Multidisciplinary Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Socio-Economic Development Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)DecolonizationEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringPoliticsLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Decolonization refers to the process of undoing or dismantling the systems and ideologies imposed during colonialism. Recognition of colonialism's enduring impacts has increased scholarly attention to conceptualizing and advancing decolonization. Methods: A systematic literature review approach was employed to analyze existing research on decolonization from 2010 to 2023. Quantitative bibliometric methods were used to extract metrics from publications and perform statistical analyses of trends. The Scopus database provided coverage of different four subjects. Results: A total of 980 documents were analyzed from 636 sources. Key findings include steady annual increases in production, with outputs doubling from 2019 to 2020. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa contributed the most publications. "Decolonization", "colonialism" and population-centric keywords dominated. Conclusion: Decolonization remains an important topic of interdisciplinary and global research. Future work will be conducted on a comprehensive bibliometric analysis in this field. Novelty: This study applied bibliometric techniques to provide valuable information about quantifiable trends, relationships and gaps within the extensive body of decolonization. Network and clustering analyses revealed collaborative patterns and thematic developments over time.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.1400.161
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNepal Journal of Multidisciplinary ResearchSame topicRegional Socio-Economic Development TrendsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207