Research Hotspots and Trend Analysis in Modeling Groundwater Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Contamination based on Bibliometrics
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
Modeling dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) contamination in groundwater is challenging because of its multiphase distribution. To understand the research trends of DNAPL modeling in groundwater, a bibliometric analysis was conducted using CiteSpace based on 614 publications from the WoS Core Collection database (1993-2023). The publications were statistically analyzed, and the research hotspots and trends were summarized. The statistical analysis of the publications indicates that: the United States is leading the international research on DNAPL models, followed by China and Canada; collaboration between countries and disciplines in this field needs to be strengthened. The summary of keyword clustering and burst detection reveals that: the current research hotspots focus on multiphase flow models, mass transfer models, back diffusion, and practical applications of the models; the research trends are centered on back diffusion mechanisms, characterization of contamination source zones and prediction of contaminant distribution in real-world sites, as well as the optimization of remediation strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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