Mapping the Research Landscape of Conservation Agriculture as a Panacea for Achieving Soil Health and Sustainable Development Goals Using Scientometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work mapped the research chronology and conceptual trends on conservation agriculture-soil health-sustainable development goals nexus by analyzing data from related literature. This is the first-time different bibliometric methods such as VOSviewer, Flourish, as well as Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny models in RStudio were simultaneously used to investigate the research impacts and/or interactions between conservation agriculture (CA), soil health and sustainable development at global scale. On 20th February 2024, a search was launched on the web of science core collection using related search terms to extract relevant data. After the screening and elimination, the search produced 835 papers which were used in the bibliometric analysis. The revealed that USA (31%), India (27%), Australia (7%), England (6%), China (6%), Canada (5%), and other countries had below 5% of the published documents. Many of the papers covered zero hunger (38%), climate action (30%), life on land (26%), while other SDGs had relatively low coverage. The study found the adoption of no till, cover cropping, and organic amendments by the authors as the common CA practices. The hybrid bibliometric approach provided a clear roadmap in understanding the global research trajectory on CA-soil health and SDGs nexus, as well as the roles of countries, authors, institutions, publishing journals. This knowledge could support in championing future debates on CA potential for effective discussion and policies, especially in the developing countries where there have been low publications.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.181 | 0.215 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".