MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407865394 · doi:10.23917/iseth.3845

Bibliometric Investigation of Development and Research Trends in Transformative Education: A Comprehensive Analysis on Scopus Database (1983-2023)

2024· article· en· W4407865394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahfudz Shidiq, Muh. Nur Rochim Maksum, Sabar Narimo

Bibliographic record

VenueProceeding ISETH (International Summit on Science Technology and Humanity) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIdeological and Political Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusTransformative learningDatabaseData sciencePolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceMEDLINEPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employing bibliometric analysis techniques, the research delves into all Scopus-database-indexed publications on Transformative Education spanning the years 1983 to 2023. Data analysis was conducted using Excel and R/R-Studio, with VOSviewer employed to visually depict the concurrent presence of keywords and document quotations. A total of 4484 publications meeting the specified criteria were identified. The findings reveal an annual growth rate of 9.26%, with the highest number of publications in the year 2022. Notably, the United States emerges as the leading contributor to these publications, predominantly affiliated with the University of Toronto. The most prolific author in the realm of transformative education is identified as Zembylas, M (Pavlidis, 2015). It's important to note that the bibliometric analysis was confined to Scopus data, and broader inclusion of other national and international databases would have enhanced the comprehensiveness of the study. In presenting a concise overview of the accessible literature in the education field, this study also provides recommendations for future research endeavors.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.1480.215
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceeding ISETH (International Summit on Science Technology and Humanity)Same topicIdeological and Political EducationCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207