Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant challenges for traditional information systems are posed due to the ever-growing volume and complexity of data. Artificial intelligence has emerged as a powerful solution to address these challenges by adapting and making intelligent decisions. Valuable insights can be gained from data to automate repetitive tasks and optimize the operations. This study examines how the researchers are concentrating to explore multifaceted impact of AI on the design, implementation, and optimization of information systems. AI is transforming the landscape of information systems with progresses in machine learning, text mining, cognitive computing and other AI technologies by enhancing the efficiency and adaptability across various domains. This study delves into this emerging landscape by conducting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of Artificial intelligence in Information systems research. This bibliometric study retrieved a dataset of publications from Scopus database spanning from 1960 to 2023 to find out the insights hidden within the scientific papers. The analysis encompasses key bibliometric indicators, such as citation patterns, co-authorship networks, and thematic clusters etc. to represent historical development of research in Artificial intelligence within the context of Information systems. This study fills a gap in AI and IS literature, drawing on 306 publications, with key contributions from the USA, China, UK, Germany, India and leading authors like OGIELA L (Lidia Ogiela) and CIMINO JJ ( James J. Cimino). Co-authorship networks highlight the dominance of collaborative research hubs in countries like USA, China, Canada, Australia, while citation patterns underscore the influence of seminal works and cross-disciplinary contributions. The findings presented in this paper offer valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers seeking a deeper understanding of the growing AI-IS landscape. As this is the first paper which takes the attempt to conduct a bibliometric analysis on artificial intelligence in information systems, this paper serves as a roadmap for navigating the rich tapestry of research, fostering collaboration, and guiding future investigations in this rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary field.
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 | 0.012 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.092 | 0.227 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".