A comprehensive review and bibliometric analysis on collaborative robotics for industry: safety emerging as a core focus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research organizations and academics often seek to map the development of scientific fields, identify research gaps, and guide the direction of future research. In cobot-related research, the scientific literature consulted does not propose any comprehensive research agenda. Moreover, cobots, industrial robots inherently designed to collaborate with humans, bring with them emerging issues. To solve them, interdisciplinary research is often essential (e.g., combination of engineering, ergonomics and biomechanics expertise to handle safety challenges). This paper proposes an exhaustive study that employs a scoping review and bibliometric analysis to provide a structured macro perspective on the developments, key topics, and trends in cobot research for industry. A total of 2,195 scientific publications were gained from the Web of Science database, and a thorough selection process narrowed them down to 532 papers for comprehensive analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze bibliometric measures, highlighting publication trends, leading journals, the most productive institutions, engaged countries, influential authors, and prominent research topics. Co-authorship and bibliographic couplings were also examined. Through a co-occurrence analysis of terms, the content and research objectives of the papers were systematically reviewed and lead to a univocal categorization framework. That categorization can support organizations or researchers in different cobotics (collaborative robotics) fields by understanding research developments and trends, identifying collaboration opportunities, selecting suitable publication venues, advancing the theoretical and experimental understanding of automatic collaborative systems, and identifying research directions and predicting the evolution of publication quantity in cobotics.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.018 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.132 | 0.139 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".