PyBibX – a Python library for bibliometric and scientometric analysis powered with artificial intelligence tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper presents pyBibX, a Python library devised to conduct comprehensive bibliometric and scientometric analyses on raw data files sourced from Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed, seamlessly integrating state-of-the-art artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities into its core functionality. Design/methodology/approach The library executes a comprehensive exploratory data analysis (EDA), presenting outcomes via visually appealing graphical illustrations. Network capabilities have been deftly integrated, encompassing citation, collaboration and similarity analysis. Furthermore, the library incorporates AI capabilities, including embedding vectors, topic modeling, text summarization and other general natural language processing tasks, employing models such as sentence-BERT, BerTopic, BERT, chatGPT and PEGASUS. Findings As a demonstration, we have analyzed 184 documents associated with “multiple-criteria decision analysis” published between 1984 and 2023. The EDA emphasized a growing fascination with decision-making and fuzzy logic methodologies. Next, network analysis further accentuated the significance of central authors and intra-continental collaboration, identifying Canada and China as crucial collaboration hubs. Finally, AI analysis distinguished two primary topics and chatGPT’s preeminence in text summarization. It also proved to be an indispensable instrument for interpreting results, as our library enables researchers to pose inquiries to chatGPT regarding bibliometric outcomes. Even so, data homogeneity remains a daunting challenge due to database inconsistencies. Originality/value PyBibX is the first application integrating cutting-edge AI capabilities for analyzing scientific publications, enabling researchers to examine and interpret these outcomes more effectively. pyBibX is freely available at https://bit.ly/442wD5z.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.068 |
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".