Mapping the Development of Paradiplomacy Research through Bibliometric Analysis
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
The purpose of this paper was to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of articles on paradiplomacy published in Scopus-indexed by analyzing the development of paradiplomacy studies, the prominent authors with the most citations, and the prominent journals containing the most paradiplomacy studies. This research used a bibliometric and content analysis of publications in the Scopus database collected through Publish and Perish. By using VOSviewer, a total of 109 articles were analyzed by classifying title, abstract, and keywords. The findings show that trend of paradiplomacy research focuses on theoretical frameworks and paradiplomacy issues such as globalization, federalism, development, foreign policy, and interests. Future research may be focused on case studies and elaborating forms of paradiplomacy. The findings also indicate that Canada, the USA, and Europe still dominate paradiplomacy studies, but research from other areas may emerge in the future. The prominent author with the most citations is Noe Cornago, while the prominent journal contains the most paradiplomatic research is The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (HJD). The Conclusion is paradiplomacy research has increased significantly. Canada, the USA, and Europe are the largest contributors to paradiplomacy publications, but other regions such as Latin America, Asia, and Africa have also begun to focus on this study. Thus, Latin America, Asia, and Africa need to be more active in research on this topic by bringing up empirical practices experienced by themselves.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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