MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410802186 · doi:10.1117/12.3053835

A bibliometric review of machine learning applications in multidomain operations: a decade of progress

2025· review· en· W4410802186 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Obaideen, Patrick Kosierb, Waleed Hilal, Mohammad Al‐Shabi, S. Andrew Gadsden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-domain operations have grown in complexity with the integration of diverse operational theaters such as land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have become essential tools for enhancing decision-making, operational planning, and autonomous system management in this evolving defense landscape. This paper presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of AI and ML applications in multi-domain operations from 2013 to 2024. Data were gathered from multiple academic databases and analyzed using VOSviewer, which enabled the mapping of keyword co-occurrences, citation networks, and influential research clusters. The analysis identified thematic clusters that encompass foundational AI/ML techniques, advanced algorithmic innovations such as adversarial and federated learning, optimization methodologies, deep learning frameworks, and systems supporting command and control. Emerging trends also include cybersecurity integration and human-machine teaming, underscoring the dynamic evolution of the field. These findings offer critical insights into the intellectual structure of research at the intersection of technology and military strategy. They provide a foundation for future studies aimed at developing secure, adaptive, and efficient AI-driven systems capable of addressing the challenges inherent in complex, multi-domain environments.

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: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0520.074
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.388
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 designNot applicable · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207