The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Economic Development: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is based on CiteSpace software for bibliometric analysis of the impact of artificial intelligence on economic development.Literature information comes from CNKI Knowledge Network database, identifying the hotspots and characteristics of the research related to artificial intelligence and economic development from the perspective of the number of articles issued, core authors, keywords, etc., and comprehensively analyzing 3,340 pieces of literature during the period from 2013 to 2023.The study shows that the number of published articles on the research on the impact of artificial intelligence on economic development increases year by year, and by 2021, the number of published articles is more than 600.Most authors publish related articles in the range of 3-7 articles, and there are fewer collaborations between authors.There are 16 keywords that appear more than 30 times in the field of the impact of AI on the economy between 2013~2023, which is statistically accounted for the total of 15.41%.The keyword clustering is divided into 7 cluster classes, and the clustering module Q=0.781, S=0.877, which has a high feasibility degree.The keyword with the highest intensity of emergence (3.91) in the field of research on the impact of artificial intelligence on economic development after 2018 is "research and development applications".
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.160 | 0.205 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".