A Bibliometric Analysis on Gated Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gated communities have emerged as significant features of contemporary urban landscapes, prompting extensive scholarly inquiry into their socio-economic, cultural, and environmental dimensions.This paper presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of gated community research to elucidate its interdisciplinary nature, global perspectives, institutional affiliations, and emerging areas of interest.Methodologically, a systematic search within the Scopus database yielded 471 relevant articles published between 1996 and May 2024.Analysis revealed a notable upward trend in publication volume, predominantly comprising peer-reviewed journal articles (73.7%), followed by book chapters (15.7%) and conference papers (4%).Interdisciplinary collaboration was evident, with Social Sciences (47.1%) leading disciplinary contributions, followed by Environmental Science (13.4%) and Engineering (9.9%).Top platforms for dissemination included Housing Studies, Cities, and Urban Studies.Global perspectives showcased contributions primarily from the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Canada.Institutional analysis highlighted leading contributors such as The City University of New York and University College London.Top researchers included Blandy, Roitman, and Landman, among others.Emerging thematic clusters were visualized, indicating evolving research trajectories and areas of interest, from foundational concepts to niche explorations.This bibliometric analysis provides a roadmap for future research endeavors, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by gated communities in contemporary urban environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".