Research trends and the impact of ChatGPT on educational environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore research trends and patterns and analyze ChatGPT's impact on education. The methodology employs a mixed-method approach, incorporating bibliometric analysis and a systematic literature review. Research data were sourced from the Scopus database using the keywords "ChatGPT" AND "Education" OR "Learning." The findings indicate that the trend of document publications in the Scopus database related to ChatGPT has seen a notable increase since its introduction in 2022, continuing through 2024. The journal JMIR Medical Education has emerged as the foremost source of citations, making significant contributions. The United States leads the way in article contributions (22.6%), followed by China (9.6%). Countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy display high levels of international collaboration, likely enhancing the diversification and quality of research.
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 | 0.017 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".