MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408941680 · doi:10.58496/bjml/2025/003

A Bibliometric Analysis of Segment Anything (SA) Research: Global Trends, Key Contributors, and Thematic Insights

2025· article· en· W4408941680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fredrick Kayusi, Rubén González Vallejo, Linety Juma, Michael Keari Omwenga, Petros Chavula

Bibliographic record

VenueBabylonian Journal of Machine Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsThematic mapKey (lock)Data scienceRegional scienceThematic analysisPolitical scienceLibrary scienceGeographySociologySocial scienceComputer scienceQualitative researchCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the research landscape surrounding "Segment Anything (SA)" technology, drawing on 704 documents from the Scopus database between 2020 and 2025. The study reveals a significant surge in scientific production, with publications peaking in 2024, marking it as a critical year for the field's growth. Lecture Notes in Computer Science emerged as the leading publication source, underscoring the foundational role of computer science in SA research, while high publication counts in Remote Sensing and IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing demonstrate the technology's interdisciplinary applications. Key contributors include a concentrated group of prolific authors, led by Zhang Y and Li Y, who significantly shape the field’s development. Geographically, Chinese institutions dominate research output, particularly Wuhan University, Tsinghua University, and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, establishing China as a central research hub. The analysis also highlights the influence of Canada and Brazil, where fewer yet highly impactful publications underscore the field's global relevance. Major thematic focuses, such as "image segmentation," "deep learning," and "medical imaging," indicate the field’s blend of foundational AI advancements and practical applications, especially in healthcare. Overall, this analysis showcases a dynamic and expanding research domain, driven by international collaborations and diverse interdisciplinary applications, setting the stage for further developments in SA technology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0400.139
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBabylonian Journal of Machine LearningSame topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207