MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411614654 · doi:10.46843/jiecr.v6i3.2193

Global Research Dynamics: A Bibliometric Exploration of Child Education in Artisanal Mining

2025· article· en· W4411614654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vieronica Varbi Sununianti, Rudy Kurniawan, Nurilla Elysa Putri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamics (music)Earth scienceData scienceComputer scienceSociologyPedagogyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the trends in child education and artisanal mining research over the past two decades, aiming to provide a quantitative analysis of the network structure within these studies. The research utilizes a bibliometric method to analyze scientific publications from the Scopus database, with results visualized using VOSviewer. A total of 208 documents from multiple countries were examined. The findings reveal that Galvin Hilson is this field's most prolific and influential author. The United Kingdom leads in terms of publication volume and citations, followed by Canada and China. The Journal of Extractive Industries and Society is the most prominent journal by volume, while the Journal of Science of The Total Environment stands out for having the highest number of citations (930). The most cited article is “Contamination Features and Health Risk of Soil Heavy Metals in China” by Chen et al. The dominant topic explored is artisanal and small-scale gold mining in Sub-Saharan Africa. While child labor remains a primary focus, the relationship between education, poverty, and socioeconomic improvements is underexplored. This study highlights the need for further research on how socioeconomic changes influence children’s education and the broader context of artisanal mining across developing nations.

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
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0200.104
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.379 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural ResearchSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207