Citation classics on distance and online learning: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify seminal research works on distance and online learning that have had significant impact on the domain. Design/methodology/approach The authors used the SCOPUS database for this study as the data source, and a well-defined search strategy retrieved the items for analysis. First, the authors identified the h-index ( n = 207) of the discipline to determine the threshold for listing the top works. The authors critically analysed these classic publications using several bibliometric parameters to present the analysis. To understand the primary focus of the classic research works, the authors also carried out a keyword cluster analysis using VOSviewer. Findings While the USA produced maximum classic research, authors from Canada have maximum research visibility in terms of citations ( n = 474.06). Canada also received the highest value of RCI (1.30), followed by Taiwan and Australia. The majority of the classics are published in 67 scientific journals. Of these, Computers and Education published the highest number with a quarter of the total citations ( n = 19,403). Although e-learning was the nucleus of the research theme, the authors observed that students, learning systems, online learning, blended learning, learning management systems and computer-aided instructions dominated their influence in the research cluster. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first of its kind work in the field of distance and online learning. Findings of this study would be useful to faculty, researchers and students in the discipline to focus on the seminal works and understand their implications better in the context of the growing significance of the discipline.
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 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.158 | 0.219 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| 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".