MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409563158 · doi:10.46799/adv.v3i1.353

Bibliometric Analysis of Social Media Trends in Hospital Marketing

2025· article· en· W4409563158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dian Ekawati

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances In Social Humanities Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaBibliometricsSocial media marketingMarketingSociologyBusinessLibrary scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a bibliometric analysis of social media trends in hospital marketing over the past decade, highlighting key developments and emerging themes within this field. The increasing integration of social media into hospital marketing strategies has revolutionized patient engagement, service promotion, and brand management. Utilizing data from major academic databases from Scopus, this research employs a sequential explanatory design, combining quantitative bibliometric analysis with qualitative insights to examine publication trends, citation patterns, and co-authorship networks. The findings reveal distinct phases of research activity, with a significant surge in publications around 2019, driven by advancements in digital marketing. Notably, the United States emerges as the central hub of international collaboration, with strong ties to countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Key themes identified include the impact of social media on patient satisfaction, the role of specific platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and the evolving nature of hospital branding. This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the intellectual structure of the field, offering valuable insights for future research and practical applications in hospital marketing using another social media platform for example: Instagram or Twitter (X).

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
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.1320.314
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational · Other design
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances In Social Humanities ResearchSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207