A Bibliometric Analysis of the Field of Information Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform a domain analysis of two recent volumes, The Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity, and The Handbook of Interdisciplinary Teaching and Administration. These volumes provide a useful snapshot of a field that is global in scope and draws on scholars with backgrounds in numerous academic fields. We identify most-cited authors, co-citation patterns, and most common publication outlets and dates of citations. One remarkable result is the dominance of publication outlets in the Handbook by one journal. More generally, our results support the idea that there is a shared global conversation but nevertheless a divergence in citation patterns within that global conversation. Our analysis of the most common terms in Abstracts and Keywords supports the general conclusion of one shared conversation, but yet with some notable differences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.056 | 0.377 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it