MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396671170 · doi:10.29333/ejmste/14577

Thematic bibliometric analysis of 37 specialized journals in mathematical education research indexed in <i>Scopus</i> or <i>Web of Science</i>

2024· article· en· W4396671170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jorge Gaona, Fabiola Arévalo

Bibliographic record

VenueEurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusThematic mapWeb of scienceMathematics educationBibliometricsThematic analysisCitation analysisComputer scienceLibrary scienceCitationMathematicsChemistryQualitative researchSociologySocial scienceMEDLINEGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This bibliometric study examines the scientific production in mathematical education of 23,094 articles from 37 specialized mathematical education journals, indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, considering all records up to the year 2022. The analysis was conducted globally and regionally, including Latin America, Africa, Europe, the United States, and Canada. Articles were analyzed using rhizomatic conceptual spaces, which allow the representation of relationships between words present in the titles and keywords of articles through graphs, thereby identifying thematic nodes and connections, as well as visible and invisible peripheral elements. The results reveal the diversity of terms used in the field and the difficulties in capturing a disciplinary field using certain keywords. Common thematic nodes such as teaching, learning, knowledge, problem-solving, curriculum, assessment, and technology were observed, as well as regional differences in focus areas and theoretical currents. The study also highlights underexplored areas and suggests possible future research paths, including expanding searches in specialized sources, bibliometric analysis of specific topics, and temporal comparison of trends in the field.

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
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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 score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1990.297
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.347 · 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.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology EducationSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207