Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Bibliometric Study on Its Role in Transforming Teaching and Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to present a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 1,726 academic studies from among those indexed by the Web of Science database platform between 2013 and 2023, to provide a general framework for the concept of artificial intelligence in education (AIEd). Trends in publications and citations across countries, institutions, academic journals, and authors were identified, as well as collaborations among these elements. Several bibliometric analysis techniques were applied, and for each analysis, the motivations behind the execution and method of producing findings were documented. Our findings showed that the number of studies on the concept of AIEd has increased significantly over time, with the U.S. and China being the most common countries of origin. Institutions in the U.S. stand out from those around the world. Pioneering journals in education have also emerged as prominent in the field of AIEd. On the other hand, collaboration between authors has been limited. The study was supplemented with keyword analysis to reveal thematic AIEd concepts and to reflect changing trends. For those exploring artificial intelligence in education, our insights on popular topics offer valuable guidance toward greater understanding of the latest advancements and key research areas.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it